Subject: [Mip6] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution Vs A solution based on MIP6

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:24:04 -0700

All,
This is an effort to kick start a discussion of the merits of each
approach and reach an agreement on the deltas and the importance of the
deltas. I have purposely avoided the use of the term "PMIPv6", since
there appears to be multiple interpretations of that among different
people. The comparison here is between the proposed NETLMM DT solution
(as in draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02) vs a solution that would be
based on using the Mobility Header (and hence be closely aligned to
MIP6). This is not intended to get into the degree of closeness to MIP6.

What does the NETLMM DT Solution bring, by being totally different from
MIP6?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ 

1. The protocol can be evolved to using a reliable transport protocol
like SCTP at some point. 
2. The protocol can run over IPv4 without changes. 

While these seem like good goals, what is the practical need for the
above goals? For instance, is IPv4 signaling a necessity for a NETLMM
solution? 

What does a solution based on MIP6 bring? 
------------------------------------------
A solution that uses the Mobility Header can re-use a number of already
defined options, some of them directly and some with minor changes. The
industry is seeking a network-based local mobility solution that can
still provide a number of features that a host-based mobility solution
can provide. So, over time, we will find ourselves addressing these
requirements and re-inventing these for NETLMM. 

Mobility options that can be re-used with an MH-based protocol like
PMIPv6: 

1. MN ID Mobility Option

This option can pretty much be used with no changes. 

2. DNS-based HA lookup

While some scenarios may not need this mechanism, it may make sense in
some deployments to use DNS for this purpose, even with PMIP6. 

3. DHCP-based HA lookup 
- Home Network Identifier Option
- Home Network Information Option
- DHCP Relay Agent MIP6 Option, MIP6 HA sub-option

Same as 2. 

4. DNS Update Mobility Option

This can be used to update the DNS server with the address assigned to
the MN within the domain in which PMIP is deployed. 

5. DSMIP6 Options
- IPv4 HoA Mobility Option
- IPv4 address acknowledgement Mobility Option
- NAT Detection Mobility Option

These options can be used without changes. 

5. HA Switch message

Also useful for the same purpose as in MIP6 and can be used without
changes. 

6. Other HA reliability messages

We need to wait for this work to stabilize a bit more before we can
tell, but we must be able to leverage off a lot of this work. 

7. Multiple CoA Registration 
- BID Mobility Option

Can be used to signal the addition of a location of the MN, rather than
a replace of location. 

8. Flow bindings support
- Flow ID Option

When the edge is aware of the QoS needs of the MN (can happen via
out-of-band mechanisms), flow bindings can be conveyed to the HA using
the same mechanism as in MIP6. 

9. NEMO Support
- Prefix registration
- Prefix Assignment

The extensions defined for NEMO support can largely be re-used to
register prefixes for the end node. 

Other points: 
-------------

1. Mechanisms such as the association phase for MAG-LMA discovery
described in the NELTMM DT protocol are potentially useful in certain
deployments of a network-based mobility solution. However, this should
be feasible to do in either approach. 

Thoughts? 

Regards,
Vidya

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:35:34 -0500

Strictly speaking, they are layer 3.5.

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:19:24 AM
Subject: [Mip6] Re: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution 
Vs A solution based on MIP6

Is MIP4 a network-layer or a transport layer protocol?  It uses UDP.

Is DS-MIPv6 network-layer or transport layer?  It uses UDP when
traversing NAT or IPv4.

Alex