<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
<!-- ajm: Sandy says PIs should be removed, commenting out for now:
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> added to rfc element below
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
-->
<rfc 
xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" 
number="0000"
updates="" 
obsoletes="" 
category="info" 
submissionType="IETF" 
consensus="true"
ipr="trust200902" 
sortRefs="true"
symRefs="true"
tocInclude="true"
xml:lang="en" 
version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 2.25.0 -->
  <!--
 This is a comment
-->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="On Demand Mobility">On Demand Mobility Management</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="0000"/>
    <author fullname="Alper Yegin" initials="A." surname="Yegin">
      <organization abbrev="Actility">Actility</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Istanbul</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>Turkey</country>
        </postal>
        <email>alper.yegin@actility.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Danny Moses" initials="D." surname="Moses">
      <organization abbrev="Intel">Intel Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Petah Tikva</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>Israel</country>
        </postal>
        <email>danny.moses@intel.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Seil Jeon" initials="S." surname="Jeon">
      <organization>Sungkyunkwan University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Suwon</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>Republic of Korea</country>
        </postal>
        <email>seiljeon@skku.edu</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="August" year="2019"/>
    <workgroup>DMM Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <t>Applications differ with respect to whether they need session 
	  continuity and/or IP address reachability. The network providing the 
	  same type of service to any mobile host and any application running on 
	  the host yields inefficiencies, as described in RFC 7333. 
	  
	  This document defines a new concept of enabling applications to influence the 
	  network's mobility services (session continuity and/or IP address reachability) 
	  on a per-socket basis, and suggests extensions to the networking stack's API
	  to accommodate this concept.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="default">
<!-- [rfced] PQ and AQ  

The following terms need consistent capitalization and hyphenation:
IP Mobility 
On-Demand Mobility
Fixed IP Address 
Session-lasting IP Address
Non-persistent IP Address
Graceful-replacement IP Address

Perhaps the following?

IP Mobility
On-Demand Mobility
fixed IP address 
session-lasting IP address
nonpersistent IP address
graceful-replacement IP address


-->
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>In the context of Mobile IP <xref target="RFC5563" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC6275" format="default"/> 
<xref target="RFC5213" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC5944" format="default"/>, 
			the following two attributes are defined for IP service provided to  
			mobile hosts:</t>
<!-- [rfced] PQ The following text seems to lend itself to a definition list; however, when I formatted it that way, it looked odd to me. Suggestions on formatting? -->
      <t>Session Continuity</t>
      <t>The ability to maintain an ongoing transport interaction 
			by keeping the same local endpoint IP address throughout the lifetime of the IP 
			socket despite the mobile host changing its point of attachment within the IP 
			network topology. The IP address of the host may change after closing the IP socket 
			and before opening a new one, but that does not jeopardize the ability of applications 
			using these IP sockets to work flawlessly. Session continuity is essential for mobile 
			hosts to maintain ongoing flows without any interruption.</t>
      <t>IP Address Reachability</t>
      <t>The ability to maintain the same IP address 
			for an extended period of time. The IP address stays the same across 
			independent sessions, and even in the absence of any session. The 
			IP address may be published in a long-term registry (e.g., DNS), and 
			is made available for serving incoming (e.g., TCP) connections. IP 
			address reachability is essential for mobile hosts to use 
			specific/published IP addresses.</t>
<!-- [rfced] PQ I'm unsure about the following acronyms:

3GPP2 - I don't think it should be expanded. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Generation_Partnership_Project_2
WiMAX - This is a branding term so I don't think it should be expanded.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiMAX
-->
      <t>Mobile IP is designed to provide both session continuity and IP 
			address reachability to mobile hosts. Architectures using these 
			protocols (e.g., 3GPP, 3GPP2, WiMAX) ensure that any mobile host 
			attached to a compliant network can enjoy these benefits. Any 
			application running on these mobile hosts is subjected to the same 
			treatment with respect to session continuity and IP address 
			reachability.</t>
      <t>Achieving session continuity and IP address reachability with 
			Mobile IP incurs some cost. Mobile IP forces the mobile host's 
			IP traffic to traverse a centrally-located router (Home Agent,  HA), 
			which incurs additional transmission latency and use of additional 
			network resources, adds to the network's operating and capital expenditures, and decreases the 
			reliability of the network due to the introduction of a single point of 
			failure <xref target="RFC7333" format="default"/>. Therefore, session continuity 
			and IP address reachability <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be provided only when necessary.</t>
      <t>In reality not every application may need 
			these benefits. IP address reachability is required for applications 
			running as servers (e.g., a web server running on the mobile host), but
			a typical client application (e.g., web browser) does not necessarily 
			require IP address reachability. Similarly, session continuity is not 
			required for all types of applications either. Applications performing 
			brief communication (e.g., text messaging) can survive without having session 
			continuity support.</t>
<!-- [rfced] AQ  RFC3261 is the base spec for SIP and can work as a reference, but there is also
                 RFC5631, which is SIP Session Mobility and may be a closer match? -->
      <t>Furthermore, when an application needs session continuity, it may be 
			able to satisfy that need by using a solution above the IP layer, such 
			as Multipath TCP <xref target="RFC6824" format="default"/>, SIP mobility <xref target="RFC3261" format="default"/>, or an application-layer mobility solution. These 
			higher-layer solutions are not subject to the same issues that arise 
			with the use of Mobile IP since they can use the most direct data 
			path between the endpoints. But, if Mobile IP is being applied to the 
			mobile host, the higher-layer protocols are rendered useless because 
			their operation is inhibited by Mobile IP. Since Mobile IP ensures 
			that the IP address of the mobile host remains fixed (despite the location 
			and movement of the mobile host), the higher-layer protocols never 
			detect the IP-layer change and never engage in mobility management.</t>
      <t>This document proposes a solution for applications running on 
			mobile hosts to indicate when establishing the network connection ('on 
			demand') whether they need session continuity or IP 
			address reachability. The network protocol stack on the mobile host, in 
			conjunction with the network infrastructure, provides the required 
			type of service. It is for the benefit of both the users and the 
			network operators not to engage an extra level of service unless it is 
			absolutely necessary. It is expected that applications and networks 
			compliant with this specification will utilize this solution to use 
			network resources more efficiently.</t>
    </section>
    <!-- Introduction -->
    <section anchor="notation" numbered="true" toc="default">
    <name>Notational Conventions</name>
       <t>
       The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
       "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>",
       "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
       "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
       "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be
       interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
       target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
       shown here.
      </t>
    </section>
    <!-- Notational Conventions -->
    <section anchor="solution" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Solution</name>
      <section anchor="hldescription" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>High-Level Description</name>
        <t> Enabling applications to indicate their mobility service requirements 
		(e.g., session continuity and/or IP address reachability) comprises the 
		following steps:</t>
<ol>
        <li>The application indicates to the network stack (local to the 
		mobile host) the desired mobility service.</li>
        <li>The network stack assigns a source IP address based on an IP prefix 
		with the desired services that was previously provided by the network. 
		If such an IP prefix is not available, the network stack performs the 
		additional steps below.</li>
        <li>The network stack sends a request to the network for a new source 
		IP prefix that is associated with the desired mobility service.</li>
        <li>The network responds with the suitable allocated source IP prefix 
		(or responds with a failure indication).</li>
        <li>If the suitable source IP prefix was allocates, the network stack 
		constructs a source IP address and provides it to the application.</li>
</ol>
        <t> This document specifies the new address types associated with 
		mobility services and details the interaction between the applications 
		and the network stack steps. It uses the socket interface as an example 
		for an API between applications and the network stack. Other steps are 
		outside the scope of this document.</t>
      </section>
      <!-- High-level Description -->
      <section anchor="addresstypes" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Types of IP Addresses</name>
        <t> Four types of IP addresses are defined with respect to mobility 
		management.</t>
<!-- [rfced] PQ Suggestions on formatting below? It seems that dictionary list could be used, 
but it looked awkward to me. 
-->
        <t>Fixed IP Address</t>
        <t> A Fixed IP address is an address guaranteed to be valid for a 
		very long time, regardless of whether it is being used in any packet 
		to/from the mobile host, or whether or not the mobile host is 
		connected to the network, or whether it moves from one 
		point of attachment to another (with a different IP prefix) while it is 
		connected.</t>
        <t>Fixed IP addresses are required by applications that need both session 
		continuity and IP address reachability.</t>
        <t>Session-lasting IP Address</t>
        <t>A session-lasting IP address is an address guaranteed to be 
		valid for the lifetime of the socket(s) for which it was requested. 
		It is guaranteed to be valid even after the mobile host has moved from one 
		point of attachment to another (with a different IP prefix).</t>
        <t>Session-lasting IP addresses are required by applications that need 
		session continuity but do not need IP address reachability.</t>
        <t>Non-persistent IP Address</t>
        <t>This type of IP address has no guarantee to exist after a mobile host 
		moves from one point of attachment to another, and therefore, no session 
		continuity nor IP address reachability are provided. The IP address is created 
		from an IP prefix that is obtained from the serving IP gateway and is not 
		maintained across gateway changes. In other words, the IP prefix may be released 
		and replaced by a new one when the IP gateway changes due to the movement of the 
		mobile host forcing the creation of a new source IP address with the updated 
		allocated IP prefix.</t>
        <t>Graceful Replacement IP Address</t>
        <t>In some cases, the network cannot guarantee the validity of the provided 
		IP prefix throughout the duration of the opened socket, but can provide a limited 
		graceful period of time in which both the original IP prefix and a new one are 
		valid. This enables the application some flexibility in the transition from the 
		existing source IP address to the new one.</t>
        <t>This gracefulness is still better than the non-persistence type of address 
		for applications that can handle a change in their source IP address but require 
		that extra flexibility.</t>
        <t>Applications running as servers at a published IP address require a 
		Fixed IP Address.  Long-standing applications (e.g., an SSH session) 
		may also require this type of address. Enterprise applications that 
		connect to an enterprise network via virtual LAN require a Fixed IP 
		Address.</t>
        <t>Applications with short-lived transient sessions (e.g., web browsers) can use 
		Session-lasting IP Addresses.</t>
        <t>Applications with very short sessions, such as DNS clients and 
		instant messengers, can use Non-persistent IP Addresses. Even 
		though they could very well use Fixed or Session-lasting IP 
		Addresses, the transmission latency would be minimized when a 
		Non-persistent IP Addresses is used.</t>
        <t>Applications that can tolerate a short interruption in connectivity 
		can use the Graceful-replacement IP addresses. For example, a streaming 
		client that has buffering capabilities.</t>
      </section>
      <!-- Types of IP Addresses -->
      <section anchor="granularity" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Granularity of Selection</name>
        <t>IP address type selection is made on a per-socket granularity. 
		Different parts of the same application may have different needs. For 
		example, the control plane of an application may require a Fixed IP 
		Address in order to stay reachable, whereas the data plane of the same 
		application may be satisfied with a Session-lasting IP Address.</t>
      </section>
      <!-- Granularity of Selection -->
      <section anchor="ondemand" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>On Demand Nature</name>
        <t>At any point in time, a mobile host may have a combination of IP 
		addresses configured. Zero or more Fixed, zero or more Session-lasting, 
		zero or more Non-persistent and zero or more Graceful-Replacement 
		IP addresses may be configured by the IP stack of the host. The 
		combination may be as a result of the host policy, application demand, 
		or a mix of the two.</t>
        <t>When an application requires a specific type of IP address, and such 
		an address is not already configured on the host, the IP stack <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> 
		attempt to configure one. For example, a host may not always have a 
		Session-lasting IP address available. When an application requests 
		one, the IP stack <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> make an attempt to configure one by issuing a 
		request to the network. If the operation fails, the IP stack <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> 
		fail the associated socket request and return an error. If successful, 
		a Session-lasting IP Address is configured on the mobile host. If 
		another socket requests a Session-lasting IP address at a later time,
<!-- [rfced] PQ Do we need to ask authors about such a change?

Current: 
                                                                       When the last
		socket using the same configured IP address is closed, the IP address 
		may be released or kept for future applications that may be launched 
		and require a Session-lasting IP address.

Perhaps:
                                                                       When the last
		socket using the same configured IP address is closed, the IP address 
		may be released, or it may be kept for applications requiring a Session-lasting
                IP address that may be launched in the future.

--> 
		the same IP address may be served to that socket as well.  When the last 
		socket using the same configured IP address is closed, the IP address 
		may be released or kept for future applications that may be launched 
		and require a Session-lasting IP address.</t>
        <t>In some cases it might be preferable for the mobile host to request 
		a new Session-lasting IP address for a new opening of an IP socket 
		(even though one was already assigned to the mobile host by the 
		network and might be in use in a different, already active IP 
		sockets).  It is outside the scope of this specification to define 
		criteria for choosing to use available addresses or choosing to request 
		new ones. It supports both alternatives (and any combination).</t>
        <t>It is outside the scope of this specification to define how the 
		host requests a specific type of prefix and how the network indicates 
		the type of prefix in its advertisement or in its reply to a request.</t>
        <t>The following are matters of policy, which may be dictated by the 
		host itself, the network operator, or the system architecture 
		standard:</t>
<ul>
        <li>The initial set of IP addresses configured on the host at boot 
		time</li>
        <li>Permission to grant various types of IP addresses to a requesting 
		application</li>
        <li>Determination of a default address type when an application does 
		not make an explicit indication, whether it already supports the 
		required API, or it is a legacy application</li>
</ul>
      </section>
      <!-- On Demand Nature -->
    </section>
    <!-- Solution -->
    <section anchor="compatibility" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Backwards Compatibility Considerations</name>
      <t> Backwards compatibility support is <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> by the following three types 
	of entities: </t>
<ul>
      <li>The applications on the mobile host</li>
      <li>The IP stack in the mobile host</li>
      <li>The network infrastructure </li>
</ul>
      <section anchor="applications" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Applications</name>
        <t>Legacy applications that do not support the On-Demand functionality will use 
	the legacy API and will not be able to take advantage of the On-Demand 
	Mobility feature. </t>
        <t> Applications using the new On-Demand functionality should be aware that 
	they may be executed in legacy environments that do not support it. Such 
	environments may include a legacy IP stack on the mobile host, legacy network 
	infrastructure, or both. In either case, the API will return an error code, and 
<!-- [rfced]  PQ
Current:  the invoking application may just give up and use legacy calls. </t>  
Perhaps:  the invoking application may fall back to using legacy calls. </t>  -->
	the invoking application may just give up and use legacy calls. </t>
      </section>
      <!-- Applications -->
      <section anchor="stack" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>IP Stack in the Mobile Host</name>
        <t>New IP stacks (that implement On Demand functionality) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> continue to support 
	all legacy operations. If an application does not use On-Demand functionality, the 
	IP stack <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> respond in a legacy manner.</t>
        <t> If the network infrastructure supports On-Demand functionality, 
	the IP stack <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> follow the application request: If the application 
	requests a specific address type, the stack <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> forward this 
        request to the network. If the application does not request an address 
<!-- [rfced]  AQ
In the sentence below, does the IP stack leave it to the network's default behavior to choose, or 
is it the case that the IP stack MUST NOT leave the choice to the network?

Current:  If the application does not request an address type, the IP stack MUST NOT request 
an address type and leave it to the network's default behavior to choose the type of the 
allocated IP prefix.

Perhaps:  If the application does not request an address type, the IP stack MUST NOT request 
an address type. Instead, the IP stack lets the network's default behavior choose the type of 
the allocated IP prefix.
-->
	type, the IP stack <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> request an address type and leave it to 
	the network's default behavior to choose the type of the allocated IP 
<!-- [rfced] AQ  Is the "may not" in the sentence below normative? -->
	prefix. If an IP prefix was already allocated to the host, the IP 
	stack uses it and may not request a new one from the network.</t>
      </section>
      <!-- IP Stack in the Mobile Host -->
      <section anchor="network" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Network Infrastructure</name>
        <t> The network infrastructure may or may not support the On-Demand 
	functionality. How the IP stack on the host and the network 
	infrastructure behave in case of a compatibility issue is outside the 
	scope of this API specification. </t>
      </section>
      <!-- Network Infrastructure -->
      <section anchor="RFC5014ref" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Merging this work with RFC5014</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC5014" format="default"/> defines new flags that may be used with 
	setsockopt() to influence source IP address selection for a socket. The list of 
	flags include the following: source home address, care-of address, temporary address, public 
	address CGA (Cryptographically Created Address) and non-CGA. When applications 
	require session continuity service, they <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> set the flags specified 
	in <xref target="RFC5014" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t>However, if an application erroneously performs a combination of (1) using 
	setsockopt() to set a specific option (using one of the flags specified in 
	<xref target="RFC5014" format="default"/>) and (2) selecting a source IP address type, the 
	IP stack will fulfill the request specified by (2) and ignore the flags set 
	by (1).</t>
      </section>
      <!-- Merging This Work with RFC5014 -->
    </section>
    <!-- Backwards Compatibility Considerations -->
    <section anchor="security" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t> The different service types (session continuity types and address reachability) associated
	with the allocated IP address types may be associated with different costs:  the cost 
	to the operator for enabling a type of service, and the cost to applications using a 
<!-- [rfced] PQ:
Current:  A malicious application may use these to generate extra billing of a 
	mobile subscriber, and/or impose costly services on the mobile operator.  
Perhaps:  A malicious application may use these to bill a 
	mobile subscriber extra and/or impose expensive services on the mobile operator.  
Or:  A malicious application may use these to bill a 
	mobile subscriber excessively and/or impose expensive services on the mobile operator.  
-->
	selected service. A malicious application may use these to generate extra billing of a 
	mobile subscriber, and/or impose costly services on the mobile operator. When expensive 
	services are limited, malicious applications may exhaust them, preventing other 
	applications on the same mobile host from being able to use them.</t>
<!-- [rfced] Should the "should" in the sentence below be normative? -->
      <t> Mobile hosts that enable such service options should provide capabilities for 
	ensuring that only authorized applications can use the expensive (or limited) service 
	types.</t>
      <t> The ability to select service types requires the exchange of the association of 
	source IP prefixes and their corresponding service types, between the mobile host and
	mobile network. Exposing these associations may provide information to passive 
	attackers even if the traffic that is used with these addressed is encrypted.</t>
      <t>	To avoid profiling an application according to the type of IP address,
	it is expected that prefixes provided by the mobile operator are associated with 
<!-- [rfced] PQ
Current:  As a result, the type of address
	could not be associated to the prefix, making application profiling based on the
	type of address harder. 
Perhaps:  As a result, the type of address
	cannot be associated with the prefix, making application profiling based on the
	type of address more difficult. 
-->
	various types of addresses over time. As a result, the type of address
	could not be associated with the prefix, making application profiling based on the
	type of address harder. </t>
      <t>	The application or the OS should ensure that IP addresses regularly change 
	to limit IP tracking by a passive observer.  The application should regularly 
	set the On Demand flag. The application should be able to ensure that session 
	lasting IP addresses are regularly changed by setting a lifetime for example 
<!-- [rfced] AQ: should the "should" in the sentence below be normative? -->
	handled by the application. In addition, the application should consider the use
	of graceful replacement IP addresses. </t>
      <t> Similarly, the OS may also associate IP addresses with a lifetime. Upon
	receiving a request for a given type of IP address, after some time, the
	OS should request a new address to the network even if it already has one IP 
	address available with the requested type. This includes any type of IP address. 
	IP addresses of type graceful replacement or non persistent should be 
	regularly renewed by the OS.</t>
      <t> The lifetime of an IP address may be expressed in number of seconds or
	in number of bytes sent through this IP address. </t>
    </section>
    <!-- Security Considerations -->
    <section anchor="iana" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document has no IANA actions.</t>
    </section>
    <!-- IANA Considerations -->
  </middle>
  <back>
<!-- [rfced] PQ Should I covert the references to the short way? -->
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
            <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="1997" month="March"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification.  These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
            <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2017" month="May"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol  specifications.  This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the  defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5014" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5014"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5014"/>
            <author initials="E." surname="Nordmark" fullname="E. Nordmark">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Chakrabarti" fullname="S. Chakrabarti">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Laganier" fullname="J. Laganier">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2007" month="September"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The IPv6 default address selection document (RFC 3484) describes the rules for selecting source and destination IPv6 addresses, and indicates that applications should be able to reverse the sense of some of the address selection rules through some unspecified API. However, no such socket API exists in the basic (RFC 3493) or advanced (RFC 3542) IPv6 socket API documents.  This document fills that gap partially by specifying new socket-level options for source address selection and flags for the getaddrinfo() API to specify address selection based on the source address preference in accordance with the socket-level options that modify the default source address selection algorithm.  The socket API described in this document will be particularly useful for IPv6 applications that want to choose between temporary and public addresses, and for Mobile IPv6 aware applications that want to use the care-of address for communication.  It also specifies socket options and flags for selecting Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) or non-CGA source addresses.  This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC6275" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275">
          <front>
            <title>Mobility Support in IPv6</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6275"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6275"/>
            <author initials="C." surname="Perkins" fullname="C. Perkins" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Johnson" fullname="D. Johnson">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Arkko" fullname="J. Arkko">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2011" month="July"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol that allows nodes to remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet.  Each mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the Internet.  While situated away from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of address, which provides information about the mobile node's current location.  IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are transparently routed to its care-of address.  The protocol enables IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the mobile node directly to it at this care-of address.  To support this operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new destination option.  All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary, can communicate with mobile nodes.  This document obsoletes RFC 3775. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5944" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944">
          <front>
            <title>IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5944"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5944"/>
            <author initials="C." surname="Perkins" fullname="C. Perkins" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2010" month="November"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies protocol enhancements that allow transparent routing of IP datagrams to mobile nodes in the Internet.  Each mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the Internet.  While situated away from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of address, which provides information about its current point of attachment to the Internet.  The protocol provides for registering the care-of address with a home agent.  The home agent sends datagrams destined for the mobile node through a tunnel to the care-of address.  After arriving at the end of the tunnel, each datagram is then delivered to the mobile node.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7333" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7333">
          <front>
            <title>Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7333"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7333"/>
            <author initials="H." surname="Chan" fullname="H. Chan" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Liu" fullname="D. Liu">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="P." surname="Seite" fullname="P. Seite">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="H." surname="Yokota" fullname="H. Yokota">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Korhonen" fullname="J. Korhonen">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2014" month="August"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) at the network layer.  The hierarchical structure in traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed mobility anchors.  As some wireless networks are evolving away from the hierarchical structure, it can be useful to have a distributed model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route.  The motivation and the problems addressed by each requirement are also described.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5563" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5563">
          <front>
            <title>WiMAX Forum / 3GPP2 Proxy Mobile IPv4</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5563"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5563"/>
            <author initials="K." surname="Leung" fullname="K. Leung">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Dommety" fullname="G. Dommety">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="P." surname="Yegani" fullname="P. Yegani">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="K." surname="Chowdhury" fullname="K. Chowdhury">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2010" month="February"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Mobile IPv4 is a standard mobility protocol that enables an IPv4 device to move among networks while maintaining its IP address.  The mobile device has the Mobile IPv4 client function to signal its location to the routing anchor, known as the Home Agent.  However, there are many IPv4 devices without such capability due to various reasons.  This document describes Proxy Mobile IPv4 (PMIPv4), a scheme based on having the Mobile IPv4 client function in a network entity to provide mobility support for an unaltered and mobility-unaware IPv4 device. This document also describes a particular application of PMIPv4 as specified in the WiMAX Forum and another application that is to be adopted in 3GPP2.  This document is not an Internet Standards Track  specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5213" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213">
          <front>
            <title>Proxy Mobile IPv6</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5213"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5213"/>
            <author initials="S." surname="Gundavelli" fullname="S. Gundavelli" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="K." surname="Leung" fullname="K. Leung">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="V." surname="Devarapalli" fullname="V. Devarapalli">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="K." surname="Chowdhury" fullname="K. Chowdhury">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="B." surname="Patil" fullname="B. Patil">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2008" month="August"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Network-based mobility management enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling.  The network is responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host.  The mobility entities in the network are responsible for tracking the movements of the host and initiating the required mobility signaling on its behalf.  This specification describes a network-based mobility management protocol and is referred to as Proxy Mobile IPv6.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6824" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824">
          <front>
            <title>TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6824"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6824"/>
            <author initials="A." surname="Ford" fullname="A. Ford">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="C." surname="Raiciu" fullname="C. Raiciu">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="M." surname="Handley" fullname="M. Handley">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="O." surname="Bonaventure" fullname="O. Bonaventure">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2013" month="January"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>TCP/IP communication is currently restricted to a single path per connection, yet multiple paths often exist between peers.  The simultaneous use of these multiple paths for a TCP/IP session would improve resource usage within the network and, thus, improve user experience through higher throughput and improved resilience to network failure.</t>
              <t>Multipath TCP provides the ability to simultaneously use multiple paths between peers.  This document presents a set of extensions to traditional TCP to support multipath operation.  The protocol offers the same type of service to applications as TCP (i.e., reliable bytestream), and it provides the components necessary to establish and use multiple TCP flows across potentially disjoint paths.  This  document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC3261" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261">
          <front>
            <title>SIP: Session Initiation Protocol</title>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3261"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3261"/>
            <author initials="J." surname="Rosenberg" fullname="J. Rosenberg">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="H." surname="Schulzrinne" fullname="H. Schulzrinne">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Camarillo" fullname="G. Camarillo">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="A." surname="Johnston" fullname="A. Johnston">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Peterson" fullname="J. Peterson">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="R." surname="Sparks" fullname="R. Sparks">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="M." surname="Handley" fullname="M. Handley">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="E." surname="Schooler" fullname="E. Schooler">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2002" month="June"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), an application-layer control (signaling) protocol for creating, modifying, and terminating sessions with one or more participants.  These sessions include Internet telephone calls, multimedia distribution, and multimedia conferences.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
<!-- [rfced] PQ I've modified this to use the API-EXT anchor, but it's not the fancy xi:include statement -->
        <reference anchor="API-EXT" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-07.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Use Cases and API Extension for Source IP Address Selection</title>
            <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-07"/>
            <author initials="S" surname="Jeon" fullname="Seil Jeon">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S" surname="Figueiredo" fullname="Sergio Figueiredo">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="Y" surname="Kim" fullname="Young-Han Kim">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J" surname="Kaippallimalil" fullname="John Kaippallimalil">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date month="September" day="10" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This draft specifies and analyzes the expected cases regarding the selection of a proper source IP address and address type by an application in a distributed mobility management (DMM) network.  It also proposes a new Socket API to address further selection issues with three source IP address types defined in the on-demand mobility API draft.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <!---->
      </references>
    </references>
    <section anchor="appendix" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conveying the Desired Address Type</name>
      <t>The following are some suggestions of possible extensions to the socket API 
		for enabling applications to convey their session continuity and address 
		reachability requirements.</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC5014" format="default"/> introduced the ability of applications 
		to influence the source address selection with the IPV6_ADDR_PREFERENCE 
		option at the IPPROTO_IPV6 level. This option is used with setsockopt() 
		and getsockopt() calls to set/get address selection preferences.</t>
      <t>One alternative is to extend the definition of the IPV6_ADDR_REFERENCE 
		option with flags that express the invoker's desire. An "OnDemand" field could 
		contain one of the following values: FIXED_IP_ADDRESS, SESSION_LASTING_IP_ADDRESS,
		NON_PERSISTENT_IP_ADDRESS, or GRACEFUL_REPLACEMENT_IP_ADDRESS.</t>
      <t>Another alternative is to define a new socket function used by the invoker
		to convey its desire. This enables the implementation of two behaviors of
<!-- [rfced] AQ  Please check that setsockotp() is the correct function name. -->
		Socket functions:  the existing setsockotp() is a function that returns after 
		executing, and the new setsc() (Set Service Continuity) is a function that may
		initiate a request for the desired service, and wait until the network responds 
		with the allocated resources, before returning to the invoker.</t>
      <t>After obtaining an IP address with the desired behavior, the application can 
		call the bind() socket function to associate that received IP address with the 
		socket.</t>
    </section>
    <!-- Conveying the Desired Address Type -->
    <section anchor="ack" numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>We would like to thank Wu-chi Feng, Alexandru Petrescu, Jouni Korhonen, 
	  Sri Gundavelli, Dave Dolson, Lorenzo Colitti, and Daniel Migault for their valuable 
	  comments and suggestions on this work.</t>
    </section>
    <!-- Acknowledgements -->
    <section anchor="contributor" numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Contributors</name>
      <t>This document was merged with "Use Cases and API Extension for Source IP Address 
         Selection" <xref target="API-EXT" format="default"/>.
         We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following people to that document as 
	  well:</t>
<!-- [rfced] PQ  The following was formatted with the artwork element in the v2 xml. Keep? Reformat?-->
      <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
Sergio Figueiredo
Altran Research, France
Email: sergio.figueiredo@altran.com

Younghan Kim
Soongsil University, Korea
Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr

John Kaippallimalil
Huawei, USA
Email: john.kaippallimalil@huawei.com
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <!-- Contributors -->
  </back>
</rfc>
