


NETLMM Working Group                                    G. Giaretta, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  Qualcomm
Intended status: Informational                          October 28, 2010
Expires: May 1, 2011


  Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues
                 draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-07

Abstract

   The use of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) in the
   same network requires some care.  This document discusses scenarios
   where such mixed usage is appropriate and points out the need for
   interaction between the two mechanisms.  Solutions and
   recommendations to enable these scenarios are also described.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

































Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Overview of the scenarios and related issues . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Issues related to scenario A.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Issues related to scenario A.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Issues related to scenario B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Analysis of possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  Solutions related to scenario A.1  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  Solutions related to scenario A.2  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.2.1.  Mobility from a PMIPv6 domain to a non-PMIPv6
               domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.2.2.  Mobility from a non-PMIPv6 domain to a PMIPv6
               domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.3.  Solutions related to scenario B  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Additional Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19



























Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


1.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is a network based IP mobility
   protocol standardized by IETF.  In some deployment scenarios this
   protocol will be deployed together with Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
   [RFC3775], for example with PMIPv6 as local mobility protocol and
   MIPv6 as global mobility protocol.  While the usage of a local
   mobility protocol should not have implications of how global mobility
   is managed, since PMIPv6 is partially based on MIPv6 signaling and
   data structure, some considerations are needed to understand how the
   protocols interact and how the different scenarios can be enabled.

   Some standardization fora are also investigating more complex
   scenarios where the mobility of some nodes is handled using Proxy
   Mobile IPv6, while other nodes use Mobile IPv6; or the mobility of a
   node is managed in turn by a host-based and a network-based
   mechanism.  This needs also to be analyzed as a possible deployment
   scenario.

   This document provides a taxonomy of the most common scenarios that
   require direct interaction between MIPv6 and PMIPv6.  The list is not
   meant to be exhaustive.  Moreover, this document presents and
   identifies most of the issues pertained to these scenarios and
   discusses possible means and mechanisms that are recommended to
   enable them.


2.  Terminology

   General mobility terminology can be found in [RFC3753].  The
   following acronyms are used in this document:

   o  AR (Access Router): first hop router.

   o  BCE (Binding Cache Entry): an entry of the MIPv6 or PMIPv6 Binding
      Cache.

   o  LMA (Local Mobility Anchor): the PMIPv6 mobility anchor as
      specified in [RFC5213]

   o  MAG (Mobility Access Gateway): the PMIPv6 client as specified in
      [RFC5213]

   o  MN-HoA: the home address of a mobile node in a PMIPv6 domain.

   o  MN-HNP: the IPv6 prefix that is always present in the Router
      Advertisements that the mobile node receives when it is attached
      to any of the access links in that PMIPv6 domain.  MN-HoA always



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


      belongs to this prefix.

   o  MIPv6-HoA: the Home Address the MN includes in MIPv6 binding
      update messages.

   o  MIPv6-CoA: the Care-of Address the MN includes in MIPv6 binding
      update messages.


3.  Overview of the scenarios and related issues

   Several scenarios can be identified where MIPv6 and PMIPv6 are
   deployed in the same network.  This document not only focuses on
   scenarios where the two protocols are used by the same mobile node to
   manage local and global mobility, but also investigates more complex
   scenarios where the protocols are more tightly integrated or where
   there is a co-existence of nodes which do or do not implement MIPv6.

   In particular the scenario space can be split into hierarchical
   deployments and alternative deployments of Mobile IP (MIP) and Proxy
   Mobile IP (PMIP).  Hierarchical deployments are scenarios where the
   two mobility protocols are used in the same network in a hierarchical
   manner for global and local mobility management.  Alternative
   deployments are scenarios where only one of the two protocols is used
   for mobility management of a given mobile node.

   The following hierarchical scenarios are identified:

   Scenario A.1 - in this scenario PMIPv6 is used as a network based
   local mobility management protocol whereas MIPv6 is used as a global
   mobility management protocol.  This interaction is very similar to
   the HMIPv6-MIPv6 interaction [RFC4140]; MIPv6 is used to manage
   mobility among different access networks, while the mobility within
   the access network is handled by PMIPv6.  The address managed by
   PMIPv6 (i.e. the MN-HoA) is registered as Care-of Address by the MN
   at the HA.  This means that the HA has a binding cache entry for
   MIPv6-HoA that points to the MN-HoA.














Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   The following figure illustrates this scenario.
                           +----+
                           | HA |  MIPv6-HoA -> MN-HoA
                           +----+
                             /\
                            /  \
             +-------------/----\--------------+
            (             /      \              ) Global Mobile IPv6
            (            /        \             ) Domain
             +----------/----------\-----------+
                       /            \
                    +----+         +----+
    MN-HoA -> MAG1  |LMA1|         |LMA2|
                    +----+         +----+
                     //\\             \\
               +----//--\\---+   +-----\\------+
              (    //    \\   ) (       \\      ) Local Mobility Network
              (   //      \\  ) (        \\     ) PMIPv6 domain
               +-//--------\\+   +--------\\---+
                //          \\             \\
               //            \\             \\
              //              \\             \\
           +----+           +----+         +----+
           |MAG1|           |MAG2|         |MAG3|
           +----+           +----+         +----+
             |                |              |
            [MN]

                                Figure 1 - Scenario A.1

   Scenario A.2 - in this scenario the mobile node is moving across
   different access networks, some of them supporting PMIPv6 and some
   others not supporting it.  Therefore the mobile node is roaming from
   an access network where the mobility is managed through a network-
   based solution to an access network where a host-based management
   (i.e.  Mobile IPv6) is needed.  This scenario may have different sub-
   scenarios depending on the relations between the MIPv6 home network
   and the PMIPv6 domain.  The following figure illustrates an example
   of this scenario, where the MN is moving from an access network where
   PMIPv6 is supported (i.e.  MAG functionality is supported) to a
   network where PMIPv6 is not supported (i.e.  MAG functionality is not
   supported by the AR).  This implies that the home link of the MN is
   actually a PMIPv6 domain.  In this case the MIPv6-HoA is equal to the
   MN-HoA (i.e. the address managed by PMIPv6).







Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


                         MIPv6-HoA == MN-HoA -> MAG1
                               +------+
                               |HA/LMA|-----------------------+
                               +------+                       |
                                 //\\                         |
                        +-------//--\\--------+               |
                       (       //    \\ PMIPv6 )              |
                       (      //      \\ domain)       +--------------+
                        +----//--------\\-----+       (   Non-PMIPv6   )
                            //          \\            (   domain       )
                           //            \\            +--------------+
                          //              \\                  |
                       +----+           +----+              +----+
                       |MAG1|           |MAG2|              | AR |
                       +----+           +----+              +----+
                         |                |                   |
                        [MN]


                                      Figure 2 - Scenario A.2
   In the scenario illustrated in Figure 2 the non-PMIPv6 domain can
   actually be also a different PMIPv6 domain that handles a different
   MN_HoA.  The following figure illustrates this sub-case: the MIPv6-
   HoA is equal to the MN_HoA; however when the MN hands over to MAG3 it
   gets a different IP address (managed by LMA2 using PMIPv6) and
   registers it as a MIPv6 CoA.

























Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


             MIPv6-HoA == MN-HoA -> MAG_1
                              +-------+
                              |HA/LMA1|-----------------------+
                              +-------+                       |
                                //\\                       +----+
                       +-------//--\\--------+             |LMA2|
                      (       //    \\  home  )            +----+
                      (      //      \\ PMIPv6)       +------||------+
                      (     //        \\domain)      (       ||visited)
                       +---//----------\\----+       (       ||PMIPv6 )
                          //            \\           (       ||domain )
                         //              \\           +------||------+
                      +----+           +----+              +----+
                      |MAG1|           |MAG2|              |MAG3|
                      +----+           +----+              +----+
                        |                |                   |
                       [MN]

                                        (a)

                       MIPv6-HoA -> MN_CoA
                              +-------+
                              |HA/LMA1|-----------------------+
                              +-------+                       |
                                //\\                       +----+
                       +-------//--\\--------+             |LMA2|  MN_CoA -> MAG3
                      (       //    \\  home  )            +----+
                      (      //      \\ PMIPv6)       +------||------+
                      (     //        \\domain)      (       ||visited)
                       +---//----------\\----+       (       ||PMIPv6 )
                          //            \\           (       ||domain )
                         //              \\           +------||------+
                      +----+           +----+              +----+
                      |MAG1|           |MAG2|              |MAG3|
                      +----+           +----+              +----+
                        |                |                   |
                                                            [MN]

                                         (b)


                  Figure 3 - Scenario A.2 with visited PMIPv6 domain

   The following alternative deployment has been identified:

   Scenario B - in this scenario some mobile nodes use MIPv6 to manage
   their movements while others rely on a network-based mobility
   solution provided by the network as they don't support Mobile IPv6.



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   There may be a common mobility anchor that acts as MIPv6 Home Agent
   and PMIPv6 LMA, depending on the type of the node as depicted in the
   figure.  However, the LMA and HA can also be separated and this has
   no impacts to the mobility of the nodes.
                                    +--------+
                                     | HA/LMA |
                                     +--------+

                +------+                              +------+
                | MAG1 |                              | MAG2 |
                +------+                              +------+

                           +-----------+
                           | IPv6 host |   ----------------->
                           +-----------+       movement
                        +----------+
                        | MIPv6 MN |  ----------------->
                        +----------+       movement

                                    Figure 4 - Scenario B

   Note that some of the scenarios can be combined.  For instance,
   scenario B can be combined with scenario A.1 or scenario A.2.

   The following sections describe some possible issues for each
   scenario.  Respective recommendations are described in Section 4.3.
   The specifications considered as a baseline for the analysis are the
   following: [RFC3775], [RFC4877] and [RFC5213].

3.1.  Issues related to scenario A.1

   This scenario is very similar to other hierarchical mobility schemes,
   including a HMIPv6-MIPv6 scheme.  No issues have been identified in
   this scenario.  Note that a race condition where the MN registers the
   CoA at the HA before the CoA is actually bound to the MAG at the LMA
   is not possible.  The reason is that per PMIPv6 specification the MAG
   does not forward any packets sent by the MN until the PMIPv6 tunnel
   is up, regardless the mechanism used for address allocation.

   Section 4.1 describes one message flow in case PMIPv6 is used as a
   local mobility protocol and MIPv6 is used as a global mobility
   protocol.

3.2.  Issues related to scenario A.2

   This section highlights some considerations that are applicable to
   scenario A.2.




Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   1.  HoA management and lookup key in the binding cache

       *  In MIPv6 [RFC3775] the lookup key in the Binding Cache is the
          Home Address of the MN.  In particular, the base specification
          [RFC3775] doesn't require the MN to include any identifier,
          such as the MN-ID [RFC4283], in the Binding Update message
          other than its Home Address.  As described in [RFC4877], the
          identifier of the MN is known by the Home Agent after the
          IKEv2 exchange, but this is not used in the MIPv6 signaling,
          nor as a lookup key for the binding cache.  On the other hand,
          as specified in [RFC5213], a Proxy Binding Update contains the
          Home Prefix of the MN, the MN-ID and does not include the Home
          Address of the MN (since it may not be known by the MAG and
          consequently by the HA/LMA).  The lookup key in the binding
          cache of the LMA is either the home prefix or the MN-ID.  This
          implies that lookup keys for MIPv6 and PMIPv6 registrations
          are different.  Because of that, when the MN moves from its
          home network (i.e. from the PMIPv6 domain) to the foreign
          link, the Binding Update sent by the MN is not identified by
          the HA as an update of the Proxy Binding Cache Entry
          containing the home prefix of the MN, but a new binding cache
          entry is created.  Therefore PMIPv6 and MIPv6 will always
          create two different binding cache entries in the HA/LMA which
          implies that the HA and LMA are logically separated.  How to
          handle the presence of the two binding cache entries for the
          same MN is described in Section 4.2.

   2.  MIPv6 de-registration Binding Update deletes PMIPv6 binding cache
       entry

       *  When the mobile node moves from a MIPv6 foreign network to the
          PMIPv6 home domain, the MAG registers the mobile node at the
          LMA by sending a Proxy Binding Update.  Subsequently, the LMA
          updates the mobile node's binding cache entry with the MAG
          address and the MAG emulates the mobile node's home link.
          Upon detection of the home link, the mobile node will send a
          de-registration Binding Update to its home agent.  It is
          necessary to make sure that the de-registration of the MIPv6
          BU does not change the PMIPv6 binding cache entry just created
          by the MAG.

   3.  Race condition between Binding Update and Proxy Binding Update
       messages (Sequence Numbers and Timestamps)

       *  MIPv6 and PMIPv6 use different mechanisms for handling re-
          ordering of registration messages and they are sent by
          different entities.  In MIPv6, Binding Update messages that
          are sent by the mobile node to the home agent are ordered by



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


          the sequence numbers.  The other side, in PMIP, Proxy Binding
          Update messages that are sent by the MAG to the LMA are
          ordered by a timestamp option.  When the mobile node moves
          from one access where Mobile IP is used to another access when
          Proxy Mobile IP is used, delay in the mobility signaling sent
          may imply adverse situations.  For example if the mobile node
          sends a Mobile IP binding update from access A before moving
          to access B and this binding update gets delayed (e.g. a
          refresh binding update), the binding update may reach the
          combined LMA/HA after the proxy binding update sent by the
          MAG, re-directing packets to access A even after the mobile
          has moved to access B.

   4.  Threat of compromised MAG

       *  In MIPv6 base specification [RFC3775] there is a strong
          binding between the Home Address registered by the mobile node
          and the Security Association used to modify the corresponding
          binding cache entry.

       *  In PMIPv6 specification, the MAG sends proxy binding updates
          on behalf of a mobile node to update the binding cache entry
          that corresponds to the mobile node's home address.  Since the
          MAG sends the binding updates, PMIPv6 requires security
          associations between each MAG and the LMA.

       *  As described in [RFC4832], in PMIPv6 the MAG compromise or
          impersonation is an issue.  RFC4832, section 2.2, describes
          how a compromised MAG can harm the functionality of LMA, e.g.
          manipulating LMA's routing table (or binding cache).

       *  In this mixed scenario, both host-based and network-based
          security associations are used to update the same binding
          cache entry at the HA/LMA (but see the first bullet of this
          list, as the entry may not be the same).  Based on this
          consideration, the threat described in [RFC4832] is worse as
          it affects also hosts that are using the LMA/HA as MIPv6 HA
          and are not using PMIPv6

3.3.  Issues related to scenario B

   In this scenario there are two types of nodes in the access network:
   some nodes support MIPv6 while some others do not.  The rationale
   behind such a scenario is that the nodes implementing MIPv6 manage
   their own mobility to achieve better performance, e.g. for inter-
   technology handovers.  Obviously, nodes that do not implement MIPv6
   must rely on the network to manage their mobility: therefore Proxy
   MIPv6 is used for those nodes.



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   Based on the current PMIPv6 solution described in [RFC5213], in any
   link of the PMIPv6 domain the MAG emulates the mobile node's home
   link, advertising the home link prefix to the MN in a unicast Router
   Advertisement message.  This ensures that the IP address of the MN is
   still considered valid by the MN itself.  The home network prefix
   (and any other information needed to emulate the home link) is
   included in the mobile node's profile that is obtained by the MAG via
   context transfer or via a policy store.

   However, in case there are nodes that implement MIPv6 and want to use
   this protocol, the network must offer MIPv6 service to them.  In such
   case the MAG should not emulate the home link.  Instead of
   advertising the MN-HNP, the MAG should advertise the topologically
   correct local IP prefix, i.e. the prefix belonging to the MAG, so
   that the MN detects an IP movement, configures a new CoA and sends a
   MIPv6 Binding Update based on [RFC3775].


4.  Analysis of possible solutions

4.1.  Solutions related to scenario A.1

   As mentioned in Section 3.1, there are no significant issues in this
   scenario.

   Figures 5 and 6 show a scenario where a mobile node is moving from
   one PMIPv6 domain to another, based on the scenario of Figure 1.  In
   Figure 5, the mobile node moves from an old MAG to MAG2 in the same
   PMIPv6 domain: this movement triggers a PBU to LMA1 and the updating
   of the binding cache at the LMA1; there is no MIPv6 signaling as the
   CoA_1 registered at the HA is the Home Address for the PMIPv6
   session.  In Figure 6, the mobile node moves from MAG2 in the LMA1
   PMIPv6 domain to MAG3 in a different PMIPv6 domain: this triggers the
   PMIPv6 signaling and the creation of a binding at the LMA2.  On the
   other hand, the local address of the mobile node is changed, as the
   LMA has changed, and therefore the mobile node sends a MIPv6 Binding
   Update to the HA with the new CoA_2.














Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+
    | MN |            | MAG2 |            | LMA1 |       | HA |
    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+
      |                  |                    |            |
      |                  |                    |   +-----------------+
      |                  |                    |   |  HoA -> CoA_1   |
      |                  |                    |   | binding present |
      |                  |                    |   +-----------------+
      |                  |                    |            |
      | CoA conf/confirm |  PBU(CoA_1,MAG_2)  |            |
      | <--------------->|  ----------------->|            |
      |                  |              +-----------------+|
      |                  |              | CoA_1 -> MAG_2  ||
      |                  |              | binding updated ||
      |                  |              +-----------------+|
      |                  |          PBA       |            |
      |                  |   <----------------|            |
      |                  |                    |            |

       Figure 5 - Local Mobility Message Flow


    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+
    | MN |            | MAG3 |            | LMA2 |       | HA |
    +----+            +------+            +------+       +----+

      |   CoA config     |  PBU(CoA_2,MAG_3)  |             |
      |<---------------->|------------------->|             |
      |                  |              +-----------------+ |
      |                  |              | CoA_2 -> MAG_3  | |
      |                  |              | binding created | |
      |                  |              +-----------------+ |
      |                  |          PBA       |             |
      |                  |<-------------------|             |
      |                  |                    |             |
      |                  |  BU (HoA, CoA_2)   |             |
      |---------------------------------------------------->|
      |                  |                    |             |
      |                  |                    |     +-----------------+
      |                  |                    |     |  HoA -> CoA_2   |
      |                  |                    |     | binding updated |
      |                  |                    |     +-----------------+
      |                  | BA                 |             |
      |<----------------------------------------------------|

        Figure 6 - Global Mobility Message Flow





Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


4.2.  Solutions related to scenario A.2

   As described in Section 3.2, in this scenario the mobile node relies
   on PMIPv6 as long as it is in the PMIPv6 domain.  The mobile node
   then uses MIPv6 whenever it moves out of the PMIPv6 domain which
   basically implies that the MIPv6 home link is a PMIPv6 domain.

   Analyzing the issues described in Section 3.2, it is clear that most
   of them are applicable only to the case where there is a common
   binding cache entry for the PMIPv6 registration and the MIPv6
   registration.  The issue 1 on how the two protocols identify the
   binding cache entry is valid only in case we assume that a PMIPv6
   message has any value for a MIPv6 BCE.  Also the issues 2 and 3 are
   not applicable in case different logical BCEs are used by the LMA and
   the HA.  For this reason, it is recommended that when the MIPv6 home
   link is implemented as a PMIPv6 domain, the HA/LMA implementation
   treats the two protocol as independent.

   More in details the following principles should be followed by the
   HA/LMA implementation:

   o  PMIPv6 signaling does not overwrite any MIPv6 BCE.  In particular,
      when a PMIPv6 binding cache entry is created for a mobile node
      which has previously created a MIPv6 BCE, the MIPv6 binding cache
      entry of the MN is not overwritten and a new PMIPv6 binding cache
      entry is created.

   o  The downlink packets in the case where both the MIPv6 binding
      cache entry and PMIPv6 binding cache entry exist are processed as
      follows:

      1.  The MIPv6 binding cache entry is processed first.  If the
          destination address of the received downlink packet matches
          the the binding cache entry of the HA, the packet is forwarded
          by encapsulating it with the care-of-address contained in the
          BCE.

      2.  If the destination address does not match the MIPv6 BCE, the
          binding cache entry created by PMIPv6 is applied and the
          packet are encapsualted to the registered MAG.

   The following subsections provide a description of the procedures
   which will be followed by the mobile node and HA/LMA based on the
   above principles.  The analysis is performed in two different
   subsections, depending if the mobile node moves from a PMIPv6 domain
   to a non-PMIPv6 domain or vice versa.





Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


4.2.1.  Mobility from a PMIPv6 domain to a non-PMIPv6 domain

   Let's assume the mobile node is attached to a PMIPv6 domain and there
   is a valid Proxy Binding Cache entry at the LMA.  Then the mobile
   node moves to a different access network and starts using MIPv6 (e.g.
   because PMIPv6 is not supported).  The mobile node needs to bootstrap
   MIPv6 parameters and send a MIPv6 Binding Update in order to have
   service continuity.  Therefore the following steps must be performed
   by the UE:

   o  HA/LMA address discovery: the mobile node needs to discover the IP
      address of the LMA which has a valid binding cache entry for its
      home network prefix.  This is described in Section 3.2 as issue 4.

   o  Security Association establishment: the mobile node needs to
      establish an IPsec Security Association with the HA/LMA as
      described in [RFC4877]

   o  HoA or home network prefix assignment: as part of the MIPv6
      bootstrapping procedure the HA assigns a MIPv6 HoA to the MN.
      This address must be the same the mobile node was using in the
      PMIPv6 domain.

   Since all these steps must be performed by the mobile node before
   sending the Binding Update, they have an impact on the handover
   latency experienced by the MN.  For this reason it is recommended
   that the mobile node establishes the IPsec security association (and
   consequently is provided by the HA/LMA with a MIPv6-HoA) when it is
   initialized.  This implies that the mobile node has MIPv6 stack
   active while in the PMIPv6 domain, but as long as it is attached to
   the same PMIPv6 domain, it will appear to the mobile node as if it is
   attached to the home link.

   In order to establish the security association with the HA/LMA, the
   mobile node needs to discover the IP address of the LMA/HA while in
   the PMIPv6 domain.  This can be done either based on DNS or based on
   DHCPv6, as described in [RFC5026] and [boot-integrated].  The network
   should be configured so that the mobile node discovers or gets
   assigned the same HA/LMA that was serving as the LMA in the PMIPv6
   domain.  Details of the exact procedure are out of scope of this
   document.

   When the mobile node establishes the security association, it
   acquires a home address based on [RFC5026].  However, based on PMIPv6
   operations, the LMA knows only the Home Network Prefix used by the
   mobile node and does not know the MN-HoA.For this reason, the mobile
   node must be configured to propose MN-HoA as the home address in the
   IKEv2 INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS attribute during the IKEv2 exchange with



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   the HA/LMA.  Alternatively the HA/LMA can be configured to provide
   the entire Home Network Prefix via the MIP6_HOME_LINK attribute to
   the mobile node as specified in [RFC5026]; based on this Home Network
   Prefix the mobile node can configure a home address.  Note that the
   security association must be bound to the MN-HoA used in the PMIPv6
   domain as per [RFC4877].  Note that the home network prefix is shared
   between the LMA and HA and this implies that there is an interaction
   between the LMA and the HA in order to assign a common home network
   prefix when triggered by PMIPv6 and MIPv6 signaling

   When the mobile node hands over to an access network which does not
   support Proxy Mobile IPv6, it sends a Binding Update to the HA.  The
   mobile node may set the R bit defined in NEMO specification (implicit
   mode) [RFC3963]in order to indicate that the entire HNP is moved to
   the new CoA.  A MIPv6 binding cache entry is created irrespective of
   the existing PMIPv6 BCE.  Packets matching the MIPv6 binding cache
   entry are sent to the CoA present in the MIPv6 BCE.  The PMIPv6
   binding cache entry will expire in case the MAG does not send a
   refresh PBU.

4.2.2.  Mobility from a non-PMIPv6 domain to a PMIPv6 domain

   In this section it is assumed that the mobile node is in a non-PMIPv6
   access network and it has bootstrapped MIPv6 operations based on
   [RFC5026]; therefore there is valid binding cache for its MIPv6-HoA
   (or HNP in case of NEMO) at the HA.  Then the mobile node moves to a
   PMIPv6 domain which is configured to be the home link for the MIPv6-
   HoA the mobile node has been assigned.

   In order to provide session continuity, the MAG needs to send a PBU
   to the HA/LMA that was serving the MN.  The MAG needs to discover the
   HA/LMA; however the current version of [RFC5213] assumes that the LMA
   is assigned to the MAG or discovered by the MAG when the mobile node
   attaches to the MAG. the exact mechanism is not specified in
   [RFC5213].  A detailed description of the necessary procedure is out
   of the scope of this document.  Note that the MAG may also rely on
   static configuration or lower layer information provided by the
   mobile node in order to select the correct HA/LMA.

   The PBU sent by the MAG creates a PMIPv6 binding cache entry for the
   mobile node which is independent of the MIPv6 BCE.  Traffic destined
   to the MIPv6-HoA (or to the HNP in case the mobile node had set the
   flag R in the last BU) is still forwarded to the CoA present in the
   MIPv6 BCE.  When the mobile node wants to use the HoA directly from
   the home link, it sends a de-registration message and at that point
   only the PMIPv6 binding cache entry is present.





Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


4.3.  Solutions related to scenario B

   The solution for this scenario depends on the access network being
   able to determine that a particular mobile node wants to use Mobile
   IPv6.  This requires a solution at the system level for the access
   network and may require knowledge of the detailed configuration and
   software capabilities of every mobile node in the system.  These
   issues are out of scope of this document


5.  Security Considerations

   Scenario A.1 does not introduce any new security issues in addition
   to those described in [RFC5213] or [RFC3775].

   For scenario A.2, this document requires that the a home agent that
   also implements the PMIPv6 LMA functionality should allow both the
   mobile node and the authorized MAGs to modify the binding cache
   entries for the mobile node.  Note that the compromised MAG threat
   described in [RFC4832] applies also here in a more severe form as
   explained in Section 3.2.  Scenario B relies on the secure
   identification of mobile nodes and their capabilities so that the
   right service can be provided for the right mobile nodes.  For
   instance, a malicious mobile node should not get the home address of
   some other node assigned to it, and a mobile node that desires to
   employ its own mobility management should be able to do so.  The
   ability to identify nodes is already a requirement in [RFC5213], but
   scenario B adds a requirement on identification of node capabilities.


6.  IANA considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.


7.  Additional Authors

   Chowdhury, Kuntal - kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com

   Hesham Soliman - Hesham@elevatemobile.com

   Vijay Devarapalli - vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com

   Sri Gundavelli - sgundave@cisco.com

   Kilian Weniger - Kilian.Weniger@googlemail.com

   Genadi Velev - Genadi.Velev@eu.panasonic.com



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   Ahmad Muhanna - amuhanna@nortel.com

   George Tsirtsis - tsirtsis@googlemail.com

   Suresh Krishnan - suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com


8.  Acknowledgements

   This document is a merge of four different Internet Drafts:
   draft-weniger-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-issues-00,
   draft-devarapalli-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv6-01,
   draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-01and
   draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-00.  Thanks to the authors and
   editors of those drafts.

   The authors would also like to thank Jonne Soininen and Vidya
   Narayanan, NETLMM WG chairs, for their support.


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.

   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support
              Protocol", January 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3963.txt>.

   [RFC4140]  Soliman, H., "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management
              (HMIPv6)", August 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4140.txt>.

   [RFC4832]  Vogt, C. and J. Kempf, "Security Threats to Network-Based
              Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)", April 2007.

   [RFC4877]  Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with
              IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", 2005.

   [RFC5026]  Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6
              Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", August 2008.



Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          PMIPv6-MIPv6 Interactions           October 2010


   [boot-integrated]
              Chowdhury, K., Ed., "MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated
              Scenario", 2007.

9.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC4283]  Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
              Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6
              (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005.


Author's Address

   Gerardo Giaretta (editor)
   Qualcomm

   Email: gerardog@qualcomm.com































Giaretta                   Expires May 1, 2011                 [Page 19]


