Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-07.txt

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email protected]> Mon, 26 Aug 2013 03:03:38 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.nemo
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Please see inline for some comments.

Regards
Sri

Abstract

This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
Management (DMM) in IPv6 deployments. The hierarchical structure in
traditional wireless networks has led to deployment models which are
in practice centralized. Mobility management with logically
centralized mobility anchoring in current mobile networks is prone to
suboptimal routing and raises scalability issues. Such centralized
functions can lead to single points of failure and inevitably
introduce longer delays and higher signaling loads for network
operations related to mobility management. The objective is to
enhance mobility management in order to meet the primary goals in
network evolution, i.e., improve scalability, avoid single points of
failure, enable transparent mobility support to upper layers only
when needed, and so on. Distributed mobility management must be
secure and may co-exist with existing network deployments and end
hosts.

[Sri] We don’t need to argue against centralized model to justify distributed model. In the absence of proper data to compare on both the approaches, we cannot have such text. The pros and cons extend to both the models. Please simply state distributed model can be useful in certain deployments and hence there is interest for this work.

1. Introduction

In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213].
Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated
message formats, we can identify a few key common features:

o a centralized mobility anchor providing global reachability and an
always-on experience to the user;

o extensions to the base protocols to optimize handover performance
while users roam across wireless cells; and

o extensions to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces
for multi-mode terminals (e.g. smartphones).

[Sri] Currently defined mobility protocols support handovers and multiple access technologies ? Not sure, how these two "common features" make the case for DMM If the point is about centralized anchor's, you don't need the other two points.

The presence of the centralized mobility anchor allows a mobile node
to remain reachable after it has moved to a different network. The
anchor point, among other tasks, ensures connectivity by forwarding
packets destined to, or sent from, the mobile node. In practice,
most of the deployed architectures today have a small number of
centralized anchors managing the traffic of millions of mobile nodes.
Compared with a distributed approach, a centralized approach is
likely to have several issues or limitations affecting performance
and scalability, which require costly network engineering to resolve.

[Sri] All 3G/4G systems are based on this model and they are running fine. Again, we don’t need to argue against centralized model to justify distributed model. Please simply state distributed model can be useful in certain deployments and hence the motivation for this work.

To optimize handovers from the perspective of mobile nodes, the base
protocols have been extended to efficiently handle packet forwarding
between the previous and new points of attachment. These extensions
are necessary when applications have stringent requirements in terms
of delay. Notions of localization and distribution of local agents
have been introduced to reduce signaling overhead at the centralized
routing anchor point [Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility].
Unfortunately, today we witness difficulties in getting such
protocols deployed, resulting in sub-optimal choices for the network
Operators.

[Sri] I assume this is about hierarchical models / Chaining ? What are these "difficulties in getting such protocols deployed" ?

Moreover, the availability of multiple-interface host and the
possibility of using several network interfaces simultaneously have
motivated the development of even more protocol extensions to add
more capabilities to the mobility management protocol. In the end,
deployment is further complicated with the multitude of extensions.

[Sri] Not sure I follow. Mobile IP protocols are in general access agnostic. Not sure, what are the extensions that we have added on access-basis.

As an effective transport method for multimedia data delivery, IP
multicast support, including optimizations, have been introduced but
by "patching-up" procedure after completing the design of reference
mobility protocol, leading to network inefficiency and non-optimal
routing.

[Sri] Multicast related extensions have nothing to do with multi-access support/host's capability to support multiple interfaces. Can you clarify ? This text is not clear.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content; such
traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data
traffic delivery. The presence of content providers closer to
Internet Service Providers (ISP) network requires taking into account
local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing mobility
services. Moreover, when the traffic demand exceeds available
capacity, service providers need to implement new strategies such as
selective traffic offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO
[TS.23.401]) through alternative access networks (e.g. WLAN) [Paper-
Mobile.Data.Offloading].

[Sri] Please add reference to IETF SIPTO doc, RFC6909, before 23.401 :)

A gateway selection mechanism also takes
the user proximity into account within EPC [TS.29303]. These
mechanisms were not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing
reasons. Assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network in

roaming scenario has until recently been done and are limited to
voice services only. Charging and billing require solutions beyond
the mobility protocol.

Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from the
development of mobile architectures with fewer levels of routing
hierarchy introduced into the data path by the mobility management
system. This trend towards so-called "flat networks" works best for
direct communications among peers in the same geographical area.
Distributed mobility management in a truly flat mobile architecture
would anchor the traffic closer to the point of attachment of the
user.

Today's mobile networks present service providers with new
challenges. Mobility patterns indicate that mobile nodes often
remain attached to the same point of attachment for considerable
periods of time [Paper-Locating.User]. Specific IP mobility
management support is not required for applications that launch and
complete their sessions while the mobile node is connected to the
same point of attachment.

However, currently, IP mobility support is
designed for always-on operation, maintaining all parameters of the
context for each mobile subscriber for as long as they are connected
to the network. This can result in a waste of resources and unnecessary costs for the service provider.

[Sri] Is the intent of this is text is about routing based approaches ?

If a mobile is attached to the network, it does have some state at the anchor. Also, if we consider the home link in mobility models, there is no state for the mobile node when it is at home. In case of DMM, or with the current models, if the gateway selection is based on the MN's location and when there is no node mobility, there should not be any state at the anchor. CDMA

Infrequent node mobility
coupled with application intelligence suggest that mobility support
could be provided selectively, thus reducing the amount of context
maintained in the network.

The distributed mobility management (DMM) charter addresses two
complementary aspects of mobility management procedures: the
distribution of mobility anchors towards a more flat network and the
dynamic activation/deactivation of mobility protocol support as an
enabler to distributed mobility management.

[Sri] Not sure, I follow this point on Dynamic activation/de-activation. Can you clarify.

The former aims at
positioning mobility anchors (e.g., HA, LMA) closer to the user;
ideally, mobility agents could be collocated with the first-hop

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

router. The latter, facilitated by the distribution of mobility
anchors, aims at identifying when mobility support must be activated
and identifying sessions that do not require mobility management
support -- thus reducing the amount of state information that must be
maintained in various mobility agents of the mobile network. The key
idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes some of the
constraints of previously-standardized mobility management solutions
and, by doing so, it can avoid the unnecessary establishment of
mechanisms to forward traffic from an old to a new mobility anchor.

[Sri] The DMM model should not exclude the case of centralized anchor and distributed data plane. This is sub-case of DMM.

This document compares distributed mobility management with
centralized mobility management in Section 3. The problems that can
be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4. The mandatory
requirements as well as the optional requirements are given in
Section 5. Finally, security considerations are discussed in Section
6.

The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can
be found in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review].

2. Conventions used in this document

2.1. Terminology

All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in
this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6
base specification [RFC6275], in the Proxy mobile IPv6 specification
[RFC5213], and in Mobility Related Terminology [RFC3753]. These
terms include the following: mobile node (MN), correspondent node
(CN), and home agent (HA) as per [RFC6275]; local mobility anchor
(LMA) and mobile access gateway (MAG) as per [RFC5213], and context
as per [RFC3753].

In addition, this draft introduces the following term.

Mobility context

is the collection of information required to provide mobility
management support for a given mobile node.

[Sri] There needs to be some definition of "centrally deployed mobility anchor". This term is used through-out the document. What is central, what is local ? Even in the so called, "centralized anchor models", a gateway can be enabled locally. Ex: LMA/MAG, PGW/SGW functions can exist on the same node.

3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management

Mobility management functions may be implemented at different layers
of the protocol stack. At the IP (network) layer, they may reside in
the network or in the mobile node. In particular, a network-based
solution resides in the network only. It therefore enables mobility

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

for existing hosts and network applications which are already in
deployment but lack mobility support.

[Sri] Above text is bit confusing to me, specially the last sentence. Mobility management can be based on client-based, or network-based.

At the IP layer, a mobility management protocol supporting session
continuity is typically based on the principle of distinguishing
between identifier and routing address and maintaining a mapping
between the two.

[Sri] Replace, "Session continuity" with "IP mobility" or "IP address continuity".

In Mobile IP, the home address serves as an
identifier of the device whereas the care-of-address (CoA) takes the
role of the routing address. The binding between these two is
maintained at the home agent (mobility anchor). If packets can be
continuously delivered to a mobile node at its home address, then all
sessions using that home address are unaffected even though the
routing address (CoA) changes.

[Sri] We should leave it at, "IP address mobility".

The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility
management functions in the network.

3.1. Centralized mobility management

In centralized mobility management, the mapping information between
the persistent node identifier and the locator IP address of a mobile
node (MN) is kept at a single mobility anchor. At the same time,
packets destined to the MN are routed via this anchor.

[Sri] Can we use the MIP terminology, home address/Care-of address terminology, as supposed to LISP terminology ?

In other
words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the
control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic).

Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized
mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown
in Figure 1. Examples of such centralized mobility anchors are the
home agent (HA) and local mobility anchor (LMA) in Mobile IPv6
[RFC6275] and Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], respectively. Current
cellular networks such as the Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) GPRS networks, CDMA networks, and 3GPP Evolved Packet System
(EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management too. In
particular, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), Serving GPRS
Support Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC) in the 3GPP
GPRS hierarchical network, and the Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW)
and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP EPS network all act as anchors
in a hierarchy.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

3G GPRS 3GPP EPS MIP/PMIP
+------+ +------+ +------+
| GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA|
+------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| SGSN | | SGSN | | S-GW | | S-GW | |MN/MAG| |MN/MAG|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
/\ /\
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+

Figure 1. Centralized mobility management.

3.2. Distributed mobility management

Mobility management functions may also be distributed to multiple
networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile node in any of these
networks may be served by a nearby mobility function (MF).

+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| MF | | MF | | MF | | MF |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|
+----+
| MN |
+----+

Figure 2. Distributed mobility management.

Mobility management may be partially or fully distributed. In the
former case only the data plane is distributed. Fully distributed
mobility management implies that both the data plane and the control
plane are distributed. Such concepts of data and control plane
separation are not yet described in the IETF developed mobility
protocols so far but are described in detail in [I-D.yokota-dmm-
scenario]. While mobility management can be distributed, it is not
necessary for other functions such as subscription management,

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

subscription database, and network access authentication to be
similarly distributed.

[Sri] The case of centralized CP and distributed DP is covered in IETF docs,

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/

This is a variant of the DMM models.

A distributed mobility management scheme for flat IP-based mobile
network architecture consisting of access nodes is proposed in
[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]. Its benefits over centralized
mobility management are shown through simulations in [Paper-
Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]. Moreover, the (re)use and
extension of existing protocols in the design of both fully
distributed mobility management [Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents] [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.SAE] and partially distributed mobility
management [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP] [Paper-
Distributed.Mobility.MIP] have been reported in the literature.
Therefore, before designing new mobility management protocols for a
future flat IP architecture, it is recommended to first consider
whether existing mobility management protocols can be extended to
serve a flat IP architecture.

[Sri] Lot of unnecessary text in this document. Not sure, we need all of this text.

4. Problem Statement

The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized in the
following:

PS1: Non-optimal routes

Routing via a centralized anchor often results in a longer
route.

[Sri] "longer route" ? I assume this is about routing/tx delay. Please re-word.

The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing
a local server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN),
or when receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP
multicast packets.

[Sri] Does RFC 6705, or RFC 6909 does not address this issue ? May be the CDN example is incorrect.

PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network
architectures such as distribution of content delivery.

Centralized mobility management can become non-optimal with a
flat network architecture.

[Sri] How is this making the case of DMM ? We want the MN to access content locally in the access network and we want localized routing. We have that in the form of 6705 and 6909. The other approach is give localized IP addresses and have the content locally accessed. There are simply two many considerations and points may be valid, but when we bring all those assumptions. We are bringing these points in a less logical manner without stating the assumptions.

PS3: Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
context maintenance

Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated
resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.
Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
context maintenance function among different network entities
with proper signaling protocol design can increase scalability.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

PS4: Single point of failure and attack

Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to single
points of failures and attacks than a distributed system. The
impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized
mobility management can be far greater as well.

PS5: Unnecessarily reserving resources to provide mobility support
to nodes that do not need such support

IP mobility support is not always required, and not every
parameter of mobility context is always used. For example,
some applications do not need a stable IP address during a
handover to maintain session continuity. Sometimes, the entire
application session runs while the terminal does not change the
point of attachment. Besides, some sessions, e.g. SIP-based
sessions, can handle mobility at the application layer and
hence do not need IP mobility support; it is then more
efficient to deactivate IP mobility support for such sessions.

[Sri] Mobility systems today do support the aspect of service for the subscriber, as "Simple IP", or "Mobile IP". A PDSN can assign a local IP address and it does not have to be the home address. Network does have this intelligence, but what is missing is the client's ability to pick the correct type of IP address, among different IP addresses. The network is also the missing the aspect of marking those addresses with proper properties. The currently active drafts in IETF are to address this issue. We should talk about these missing semantics.

draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-05<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix/>

draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties-02<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-korhonen-6man-prefix-properties/>

PS6: (Related problem) Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer
communication

Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of
the tunnel, keep alive signaling, etc.) is not turned off for
peer-to-peer communication. Peer-to-peer communications have
particular traffic patterns that often do not benefit from
mobility support from the network. Thus, the associated
mobility support signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel,
keep alive signaling, etc.) wastes network resources for no
application gain. In such a case, it is better to enable
mobility support selectively.

[Sri] How is PS6 different from PS5 ? We talk about application's ability to pick the address with or without mobility properties in PS5. So, the traffic patterns can be localized based on the application requirements. But, even if we take the argument that mobility is not required, operator needs visibility into these flows and so they can charge. Again, we have 6705 and 6909 for adjusting to those traffic patterns. So, this P without those considerations is incomplete.

PS7: (Related problem) Deployment with multiple mobility solutions

There are already many variants and extensions of MIP.
Deployment of new mobility management solutions can be
challenging, and debugging difficult, when they must co-exist
with solutions already in the field.

PS8: Duplicate multicast traffic

IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility
solutions (e.g. RFC6224) may lead to convergence of duplicated
multicast subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entity
(e.g. MAG in PMIPv6). Concretely, when multicast subscription
for individual mobile nodes is coupled with mobility tunnels
(e.g. PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate multicast subscription(s) is

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

prone to be received through different upstream paths. This
problem may also exist or be more severe in a distributed
mobility environment.

[Sri] Is this for MN's from different LMA's attached to the same MAG ?

5. Requirements

After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized
deployment in Section 3, this section identifies the following
requirements:

5.1. Distributed processing

REQ1: Distributed processing

IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
so that traffic does not need to traverse centrally deployed
mobility anchors and thereby avoid non-optimal routes.

Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in
network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to
cache and distribute content by combining distributed mobility
anchors with caching systems (e.g., CDN); (b) the
significantly larger number of mobile nodes and flows call for
improved scalability; (c) single points of failure are avoided
in a distributed system; (d) threats against centrally
deployed anchors, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor,
are mitigated in a distributed system.

This requirement addresses the problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4
described in Section 4. (Existing route optimization is only a host-
based solution. On the other hand, localized routing with PMIPv6
addresses only a part of the problem where both the MN and the CN are
located in the PMIP domain and attached to a MAG, and is not
applicable when the CN is outside the PMIP domain.)

[Sri] I'm still stuck on the CDN example driving this requirement.

5.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed

DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above
the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for
example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the
network, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the
IP address. However, it is not always necessary to maintain a
stable home IP address or prefix for every application or at
all times for a mobile node.

[Sri] Please reflect the two key aspects of this requirement:

Network can assign IP addresses with different properties; It carries those properties

Applications have different requirements and will pick the address with the correct property.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable
more efficient use of network resources and more efficient
routing by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when
there is no such need.

This requirement addresses the problem PS5 as well as the related
problem PS6 stated in Section 4.

5.3. IPv6 deployment

REQ3: IPv6 deployment

DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment
environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support
IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses
and/or NATs are used.

Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general
orientation of IETF work. DMM deployment is foreseen in mid-
to long-term horizon, when IPv6 is expected to be far more
common than today.

This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complexity in solving the
problems in Section 4 for IPv4, which will not be able to use some of
the IPv6-specific features.

5.4. Existing mobility protocols

REQ4: Existing mobility protocols

A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending
IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols.

Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and
less error-prone.

This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols
development and therefore their potential problems of being time-
consuming and error-prone.

5.5. Co-existence

REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts

The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing
network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending on
the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may
need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile hosts/routers
that do not support DMM protocols. The mobile node may also
move between different access networks, where some of them may
support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol.
Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different
networks, possibly operated as separate administrative
domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them.

Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that
existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to
function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if
desired.

This requirement addresses the related problem PS7 described in
Section 4.

5.6. Security considerations

REQ6: Security considerations

A DMM solution MUST not introduce new security risks or
amplify existing security risks against which the existing
security mechanisms/protocols cannot offer sufficient
protection.

Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of
service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may be launched
in a DMM deployment. For instance, an illegitimate node may
attempt to access a network providing DMM. Another example is
that a malicious node can forge a number of signaling messages
thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path.
Consequently, the specific node is under a denial of service
attack, whereas other nodes do not receive their traffic.
Accordingly, security mechanisms/protocols providing access
control, integrity, authentication, authorization,
confidentiality, etc. can be used to protect the DMM entities
as they are already used to protect against existing networks
and existing mobility protocols defined in IETF. In addition,
end-to-end security measures between communicating nodes may
already be used when deploying existing mobility protocols
where the signaling messages travel over the Internet. For
instance, EAP-based authentication can be used for network
access security, while IPsec can be used for end-to-end
security. When the existing security mechanisms/protocols are
applied to protect the DMM entities, the security risks that
may be introduced by DMM MUST be considered to be eliminated.
Else the security protection would be degraded in the DMM
solution versus in existing mobility protocols.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing
uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility management
protocols which make deployment infeasible because platforms
conforming to the protocols are at risk for data loss and numerous
other dangers, including financial harm to the users.

5.7. Multicast

REQ7: Multicast considerations

DMM SHOULD consider multicast early so that solutions can be
developed not only to provide IP mobility support when it is
needed, but also to avoid network inefficiency issues in
multicast traffic delivery (such as duplicate multicast
subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entities). The
multicast solutions should therefore avoid restricting the
management of all IP multicast traffic to a single host
through a dedicated (tunnel) interface on multicast-capable
access routers.

Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced
after completing the design of the reference mobility
protocol, then optimization and extensions have been followed
by "patching-up" procedure, thus leading to network
inefficiency and non-optimal routing. The multicast solutions
should therefore be required to consider efficiency nature in
multicast traffic delivery.

This requirement addresses the problems PS1 and PS8 described in
Section 4.

6. Security Considerations

Please refer to the discussion under Security requirement in Section
5.6.

7. IANA Considerations

None

8. Co-authors and Contributors

This problem statement document is a joint effort among the numerous
participants. Each individual has made significant contributions to
this work and have been listed as co-authors.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2. Informative References

[I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario]
Yokota, H., Seite, P., Demaria, E., and Z. Cao, "Use case
scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management",
draft-yokota-dmm-scenario-00 (work in progress),
October 2010.

[Paper-Distributed.Centralized.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
or Centralized Mobility", Proceedings of Global
Communications Conference (GlobeCom), December 2009.

[Paper-Distributed.Dynamic.Mobility]
Bertin, P., Bonjour, S., and J-M. Bonnin, "A Distributed
Dynamic Mobility Management Scheme Designed for Flat IP
Architectures", Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security
(NTMS), 2008.

[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.MIP]
Chan, H., "Distributed Mobility Management with Mobile
IP", Proceedings of IEEE International Communication
Conference (ICC) Workshop on Telecommunications: from
Research to Standards, June 2012.

[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.PMIP]
Chan, H., "Proxy Mobile IP with Distributed Mobility
Anchors", Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless
Wireless Mobility, December 2010.

[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]
Chan, H., Yokota, H., Xie, J., Seite, P., and D. Liu,
"Distributed and Dynamic Mobility Management in Mobile
Internet: Current Approaches and Issues, Journal of
Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4-15, Feb 2011.",
Proceedings of GlobeCom Workshop on Seamless Wireless
Mobility, February 2011.

[Paper-Distributed.Mobility.SAE]
Fisher, M., Anderson, F., Kopsel, A., Schafer, G., and M.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

Schlager, "A Distributed IP Mobility Approach for 3G SAE",
Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC),
2008.

[Paper-Locating.User]
Kirby, G., "Locating the User", Communication
International, 1995.

[Paper-Migrating.Home.Agents]
Wakikawa, R., Valadon, G., and J. Murai, "Migrating Home
Agents Towards Internet-scale Mobility Deployments",
Proceedings of the ACM 2nd CoNEXT Conference on Future
Networking Technologies, December 2006.

[Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]
Lee, K., Lee, J., Yi, Y., Rhee, I., and S. Chong, "Mobile
Data Offloading: How Much Can WiFi Deliver?", SIGCOMM
2010, 2010.

[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.

[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.

[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010.

[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

[RFC6301] Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang, "A Survey of Mobility
Support in the Internet", RFC 6301, July 2011.

[TS.23.401]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TR 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013.

[TS.29303]
3GPP, "Domain Name System Procedures; Stage 3", 3GPP
TR 23.303 11.2.0, September 2012.

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

Authors' Addresses

H Anthony Chan (editor)
Huawei Technologies (more co-authors on P. 17)
5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3, Plano, TX 75024, USA
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Dapeng Liu
China Mobile
Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Pierrick Seite
Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226, Cesson-Sevigne 35512, France
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Hidetoshi Yokota
KDDI Lab
2-1-15 Ohara, Fujimino, Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Charles E. Perkins
Huawei Technologies
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Melia Telemaco
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Elena Demaria
Telecom Italia
via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Jong-Hyouk Lee
RSM Department, Telecom Bretagne
Cesson-Sevigne, 35512, France
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

Kostas Pentikousis
Huawei Technologies
Carnotstr. 4 10587 Berlin, Germany
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Tricci So
ZTE
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Peter McCann
Huawei Technologies
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Seok Joo Koh
Kyungpook National University, Korea
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Wen Luo
ZTE
No.68, Zijinhua RD,Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Sri Gundavelli
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Marco Liebsch
NEC Laboratories Europe
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Carl Williams
MCSR Labs
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Seil Jeon
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Aveiro
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Sergio Figueiredo
Universidade de Aveiro
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Stig Venaas
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft DMM-Reqs August 2013

-
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Juan Carlos Zuniga
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Alexandru Petrescu
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Georgios Karagiannis
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Julien Laganier
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Wassim Michel Haddad
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Dirk von Hugo
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Ahmad Muhanna
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Byoung-Jo Kim
ATT Labs
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-
Hassan Aliahmad
Orange
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-

Chan (Ed.), et al. Expires February 3, 2014 [Page 19]

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm