RFC 6612
Interactions between Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6): Scenarios and Related Issues
Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: Scenarios and Related Issues 💖
Okay bestie, this is RFC 6612 🎀 It's titled Interactions between Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6): Scenarios and Related Issues. It was written by G. Giaretta, Ed. from Qualcomm and published in May 2012 🌸 It's an Informational doc (not a standards track one), and it's listed under ISSN 2070-1721. The title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so it doesn't replace or change any other RFC 💅
Abstract 🦋
Using PMIPv6 and MIPv6 in the same network needs some care, ngl 🙈 This doc talks about the scenarios where mixing them makes sense and shows why the two mechanisms need to interact. It also describes solutions and recommendations for making those scenarios work ✨
Status of This Memo 📜
This doc is not an Internet Standards Track specification. It's published just for information 🧚
This doc is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community, and it went through public review and got approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every doc the IESG approves is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. See Section 2 of RFC 5741 for that 🔥
For info about the current status of this doc, any errata, and how to send feedback, check http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6612 💜
Copyright Notice 🎀
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved ✨
This doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Please read these carefully, because they describe your rights and restrictions for this doc 🫶 Any Code Components pulled out of this doc have to include the Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come with no warranty, just like the Simplified BSD License says 💅
This doc may include material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions that were published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The people who control the copyright in some of that material may not have given the IETF Trust permission to allow changes to it outside the IETF Standards Process. So unless you get a proper license from those copyright holders, this doc can't be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it can't be made outside that process either. The only exceptions are formatting it for publication as an RFC or translating it into languages other than English 😭
Table of Contents 📚
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Overview of the Scenarios and Related Issues ....................4
3.1. Issues Related to Scenario A.1 .............................8
3.2. Issues Related to Scenario A.2 .............................8
3.3. Issues Related to Scenario B ..............................10
4. Analysis of Possible Solutions .................................11
4.1. Solutions Related to Scenario A.1 .........................11
4.2. Solutions Related to Scenario A.2 .........................13
4.2.1. Mobility from a PMIPv6 Domain to a
Non-PMIPv6 Domain ..................................14
4.2.2. Mobility from a Non-PMIPv6 Domain to a
PMIPv6 Domain ......................................15
4.3. Solutions Related to Scenario B ...........................15
5. Security Considerations ........................................16
6. Contributors ...................................................16
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................16
8. References .....................................................17
8.1. Normative References ......................................17
8.2. Informative References ....................................171. Introduction ✨
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is a network-based IP mobility protocol that the IETF standardized 🌈 In some deployments, this protocol gets used together with Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275]. For example, PMIPv6 might be the local mobility protocol while MIPv6 is the global mobility protocol 🧚 The local mobility protocol shouldn't change how global mobility is managed. But PMIPv6 is partly built on MIPv6 signaling and data structures, so we need some extra thinking to understand how the two protocols interact and how the different scenarios can be enabled 🦋
Some standards groups are also looking at more complicated setups, lowkey 👀 In these, some nodes get their mobility handled by Proxy Mobile IPv6 while others use Mobile IPv6. Or a single node's mobility might be managed by a host-based mechanism and a network-based mechanism at the same time. This also needs to be analyzed as a possible deployment scenario 💜
This doc gives a taxonomy of the most common scenarios that need direct interaction between MIPv6 and PMIPv6. The list isn't meant to be exhaustive, so it's not the whole story 🫶 It also presents and identifies most of the issues that come up in these scenarios, and it talks about possible means and mechanisms that are recommended for enabling them 🔥
2. Terminology 🎀
General mobility terminology can be found in [RFC3753]. These are the acronyms used in this doc, bestie 💅
- AR (Access Router): first hop router
- BCE (Binding Cache Entry): an entry of the MIPv6 or PMIPv6 binding cache
- LMA (Local Mobility Anchor): the PMIPv6 mobility anchor as specified in [RFC5213]
- MAG (Mobility Access Gateway): the PMIPv6 client as specified in [RFC5213]
- MN-HoA: the Home Address (HoA) of a Mobile Node (MN) in a PMIPv6 domain
- MN-HNP: the IPv6 prefix that is always present in the Router Advertisements that the MN receives when it is attached to any of the access links in that PMIPv6 domain (MN-HoA always belongs to this prefix.)
- MIPv6-HoA: the HoA the MN includes in MIPv6 Binding Update messages
- MIPv6-CoA: the Care-of Address the MN includes in MIPv6 Binding Update messages
3. Overview of the Scenarios and Related Issues ✨
okay so bestie, this is where it gets spicy 🔥 MIPv6 and PMIPv6 can show up in the same network, and that's the whole vibe here. This doc isn't just looking at the case where one MN uses both protocols to handle local and global mobility 💅. It also digs into the messier setups where the two are more tightly integrated, or where some nodes run MIPv6 and some don't 🫶
The big split is between hierarchical deployments and alternative deployments of Mobile IP (MIP) and Proxy Mobile IP (PMIP) 🦋. Hierarchical means both protocols are running in the same network, stacked up for global and local mobility management 👑. Alternative means only one of the two protocols is handling mobility for a given MN 🌸
Here are the hierarchical scenarios we've got 🧚
Scenario A.1: PMIPv6 is the network-based local mobility protocol, and MIPv6 is the global one 💖 This is basically the same energy as the interaction between Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) and MIPv6 [RFC5380] 😭 MIPv6 handles moving between different access networks, and PMIPv6 handles the moving around inside an access network ✨ The address PMIPv6 manages (the MN-HoA) gets registered as the Care-of Address by the MN at the Home Agent (HA). So the HA ends up with a BCE for MIPv6-HoA that points to the MN-HoA 🎀
Here's the picture:
+----+
| 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.1Scenario A.2: the MN is roaming across access networks, and some support PMIPv6 while others don't 🌈 So the MN goes from a network where mobility is handled by the network itself to one where it needs host-based management, which means Mobile IPv6 🙈 This one can have a few sub-scenarios, depending on how the MIPv6 home network and the PMIPv6 domain relate to each other 💜 In the example below, the MN moves from an access network with PMIPv6 support (so MAG functionality is there) to one without it (the AR doesn't do MAG functionality) 💀 That means the MN's home link is actually a PMIPv6 domain, and the MIPv6-HoA is the same as the MN-HoA (the address PMIPv6 manages) 🍓
MIPv6-HoA == MN-HoA -> MAG1
+------+
|HA/LMA|-----------------------+
+------+ |
//\\ |
+-------//--\\--------+ |
( // \\ PMIPv6 ) |
( // \\ domain) +--------------+
+----//--------\\-----+ ( Non-PMIPv6 )
// \\ ( domain )
// \\ +--------------+
// \\ |
+----+ +----+ +----+
|MAG1| |MAG2| | AR |
+----+ +----+ +----+
| | |
[MN]
Figure 2: Scenario A.2In the Figure 2 scenario, the non-PMIPv6 domain can also be a different PMIPv6 domain that handles a different MN_HoA 🫧 Here's that sub-case: the MIPv6-HoA is still equal to the MN_HoA, but when the MN hands over to MAG3, it gets a new IP address (managed by LMA2 using PMIPv6) and registers that as a MIPv6 CoA 😭
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 DomainAnd here's the alternative deployment we've spotted 🦋
Scenario B: some MNs use MIPv6 to manage their movement, while others depend on a network-based mobility solution the network provides, since they don't support Mobile IPv6 🌸 There may be one shared mobility anchor acting as both the MIPv6 Home Agent and the PMIPv6 LMA, depending on the node type, as shown in the figure 🧚 But the LMA and HA can also be split apart, and that doesn't change anything for the nodes' mobility 🫶
+--------+
| HA/LMA |
+--------+
+------+ +------+
| MAG1 | | MAG2 |
+------+ +------+
+-----------+
| IPv6 host | ----------------->
+-----------+ movement
+----------+
| MIPv6 MN | ----------------->
+----------+ movement
Figure 4: Scenario BQuick note: some of these scenarios can be combined 💅 For example, Scenario B can be combined with Scenario A.1 or Scenario A.2 ✨
The next sections walk through possible issues for each scenario 🔥 The recommendations live in Section 4.3 💖 The baseline specs for the analysis are [RFC6275], [RFC4877], and [RFC5213] 📚
3.1. Issues Related to Scenario A.1
Okay this one is honestly giving "easy mode" 🥰 It's very similar to other hierarchical mobility schemes, including the HMIPv6-MIPv6 one, and no issues have been identified for it 💅 There's one race condition you might be worried about, where the MN registers the CoA at the HA before the CoA is actually bound to the MAG at the LMA, but that's not possible 🙈 The reason is that, per the PMIPv6 specification [RFC5213], the MAG doesn't forward any packets sent by the MN until the PMIPv6 tunnel is up, no matter which mechanism was used for address allocation 🎀 So that race is a no-go 🚫✨
Section 4.1 walks through one message flow for when PMIPv6 is the local mobility protocol and MIPv6 is the global one 🦋
3.2. Issues Related to Scenario A.2 💅
okay so this section is all about the things that matter for scenario A.2 🫶
- HoA management and lookup key in the binding cache 🔑
- okay so in MIPv6 [RFC6275], the lookup key in the binding cache is the HoA of the MN. The base spec [RFC6275] doesn't require the MN to include any identifier, such as the MN-ID [RFC4283], in the Binding Update message other than its HoA. As described in [RFC4877], the identifier of the MN is known by the Home Agent after the Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKEv2) exchange, but this is not used in the MIPv6 signaling or 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 HoA 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 BCE containing the home prefix of the MN, but a new binding cache entry is created.
- therefore, PMIPv6 and MIPv6 will always create two different BCEs in the HA/LMA, which implies that the HA and LMA are logically separated. How to handle the presence of the two BCEs for the same MN is described in Section 4.2. main character energy 👑
- MIPv6 de-registration Binding Update deletes PMIPv6 binding cache entry 🙈
- when the MN moves from a MIPv6 foreign network to the PMIPv6 home domain, the MAG registers the MN at the LMA by sending a Proxy Binding Update. Subsequently, the LMA updates the MN's BCE with the MAG address and the MAG emulates the MN's home link. Upon detection of the home link, the MN will send a de-registration Binding Update to its home agent.
- it is necessary to make sure that the de-registration of the MIPv6 Binding Update does not change the PMIPv6 BCE just created by the MAG. 💜
- 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 MN to the home agent are ordered by the sequence numbers. The other side, in PMIPv6, Proxy Binding Update messages that are sent by the MAG to the LMA are ordered by a timestamp option.
- when the MN 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 MN 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 MN has moved to access B. 😭
- Threat of compromised MAG 🚨
- in the MIPv6 base specification [RFC6275], there is a strong binding between the HoA registered by the MN and the Security Association (SA) used to modify the corresponding BCE.
- in the PMIPv6 specification [RFC5213], the MAG sends Proxy Binding Updates on behalf of a MN to update the BCE that corresponds to the MN's HoA. Since the MAG sends the Binding Updates, PMIPv6 requires SAs between each MAG and the LMA.
- as described in [RFC4832], in PMIPv6, MAG compromise or impersonation is an issue. [RFC4832], Section 2.2, describes how a compromised MAG can harm the functionality of an LMA, e.g., manipulating the LMA's routing table (or binding cache). 💀
- in this mixed scenario, both host-based and network-based SAs 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 also affects hosts that are using the LMA/HA as MIPv6 HA and not using PMIPv6. this one is seriously not it 😤
3.3. Issues Related to Scenario B 🧚
okay so 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 it 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. 🌸
based on the current PMIPv6 solution described in [RFC5213], in any link of the PMIPv6 domain, the MAG emulates the MN'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 MN'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 a 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 [RFC6275]. 🦋
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 an MN is moving from one PMIPv6 domain to another, based on the scenario of Figure 1. In Figure 5, the MN 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 HoA for the PMIPv6 session. In Figure 6, the MN 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; therefore, the MN sends a MIPv6 Binding Update to the HA with the new CoA_2. 🫶
+----+ +------+ +------+ +----+
| 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 🌍
4.2. Solutions Related to Scenario A.2 💅
Okay so, like we said in Section 3.2, in this scenario the MN leans on PMIPv6 for as long as it's inside the PMIPv6 domain 🏠. The MN then switches over to MIPv6 whenever it leaves that domain, which basically means the MIPv6 home link is itself a PMIPv6 domain 🦋.
Looking back at the issues from Section 3.2, most of them only matter when one common BCE handles both the PMIPv6 registration and the MIPv6 registration 🫶. Issue 1 (how the two protocols identify the BCE) only holds if we assume a PMIPv6 message can carry any value for a MIPv6 BCE. Issues 2 and 3 don't apply when the LMA and the HA use different logical BCEs. So it is recommended that when the MIPv6 home link is implemented as a PMIPv6 domain, the HA/LMA implementation treats the two protocols as independent 💖.
In more detail, the following principles should be followed by the HA/LMA implementation:
- PMIPv6 signaling does not overwrite any MIPv6 BCE. In particular, when a PMIPv6 BCE is created for an MN that has previously created a MIPv6 BCE, the MIPv6 BCE of the MN is not overwritten, and a new PMIPv6 BCE is created.
- The downlink packets in the case where both the MIPv6 BCE and PMIPv6 BCE exist are processed as follows:
- The MIPv6 BCE is processed first. If the destination address of the received downlink packet matches the BCE of the HA, the packet is forwarded by encapsulating it with the CoA contained in the BCE.
- If the destination address does not match the MIPv6 BCE, the BCE created by PMIPv6 is applied, and the packets are encapsulated to the registered MAG.
The next two subsections walk through the procedures that the MN and HA/LMA follow based on those principles. The analysis is split up depending on whether the MN moves from a PMIPv6 domain to a non-PMIPv6 domain or the other way around ✨.
4.2.1. Mobility from a PMIPv6 Domain to a Non-PMIPv6 Domain 🚀
Let's say the MN is chilling in a PMIPv6 domain and there's a valid Proxy BCE at the LMA. Then the MN moves to a different access network and starts using MIPv6 (for example, because PMIPv6 isn't supported). The MN needs to bootstrap MIPv6 parameters and send a MIPv6 Binding Update so it keeps service continuity. So the User Equipment (UE) must do the following:
- HA/LMA address discovery: the MN needs to discover the IP address of the LMA that has a valid BCE for its home network prefix. This is described in Section 3.2 as Issue 4.
- SA establishment: the MN needs to establish an IPsec Security Association with the HA/LMA as described in [RFC4877].
- 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 MN was using in the PMIPv6 domain.
Here's the tea 🍵: all of these steps must be performed by the MN before it sends the Binding Update, so they hit the handover latency the MN experiences. For this reason, it is recommended that the MN establish the IPsec SA (and, as a result, be provided by the HA/LMA with a MIPv6-HoA) when it is initialized. That means the MN has a MIPv6 stack active while it's in the PMIPv6 domain, but as long as it stays attached to that same PMIPv6 domain, it will look to the MN like it's attached to the home link 🥰.
To set up the SA with the HA/LMA, the MN needs to discover the IP address of the LMA/HA while it's in the PMIPv6 domain. This can be done either based on DNS or based on DHCPv6, as described in [RFC5026] and [RFC6611]. The network should be configured so that the MN discovers or gets assigned the same HA/LMA that was serving as the LMA in the PMIPv6 domain. The details of the exact procedure are out of scope for this document 🙈.
When the MN establishes the SA, it acquires an HoA based on [RFC5026]. However, because of how PMIPv6 works, the LMA only knows the home network prefix used by the MN and does not know the MN-HoA. So the MN must be configured to propose the MN-HoA as the HoA in the IKEv2 INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS attribute during the IKEv2 exchange with 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 MN as specified in [RFC5026]. Based on that home network prefix, the MN can configure an HoA. Heads up: the SA must be bound to the MN-HoA used in the PMIPv6 domain, as per [RFC4877]. Also, the home network prefix is shared between the LMA and HA, which means the LMA and the HA have to interact in order to assign a common home network prefix when PMIPv6 and MIPv6 signaling trigger it 🔥.
When the MN hands over to an access network that does not support Proxy Mobile IPv6, it sends a Binding Update to the HA. The MN may set the R bit defined in the Network Mobility (NEMO) specification (implicit mode) [RFC3963] to indicate that the entire HNP is moved to the new CoA. A MIPv6 BCE gets created no matter what the existing PMIPv6 BCE looks like. Packets matching the MIPv6 BCE are sent to the CoA present in the MIPv6 BCE. The PMIPv6 BCE will expire in the case in which the MAG does not send a refresh PBU ⏳.
4.2.2. Mobility from a Non-PMIPv6 Domain to a PMIPv6 Domain 🌈
In this section, the MN is in a non-PMIPv6 access network and has bootstrapped MIPv6 operations based on [RFC5026]. So there is a valid binding cache for its MIPv6-HoA (or HNP in case of NEMO) at the HA. Then the MN moves to a PMIPv6 domain that is configured to be the home link for the MIPv6-HoA the MN has been assigned 🧚.
To keep 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, [RFC5213] assumes that the LMA is assigned to the MAG or discovered by the MAG when the MN attaches to the MAG, and 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 MN in order to select the correct HA/LMA 💜.
The PBU sent by the MAG creates a PMIPv6 BCE for the MN that is independent of the MIPv6 BCE. Traffic destined to the MIPv6-HoA (or to the HNP in case the MN had set the flag R in the last BU) is still forwarded to the CoA present in the MIPv6 BCE. When the MN wants to use the HoA directly from the home link, it sends a de-registration message and, at that point only, the PMIPv6 BCE is present 🦋.
4.3. Solutions Related to Scenario B 🎀
The solution for this scenario depends on the access network being able to figure out that a particular MN wants to use Mobile IPv6. That requires a solution at the system level for the access network, and it may require knowing the detailed configuration and software capabilities of every MN in the system. These issues are out of the scope of this document 🙈.
5. Security Considerations 🔐
Scenario A.1 does not introduce any new security issues beyond the ones described in [RFC5213] or [RFC6275].
For Scenario A.2, this document requires that a home agent that also implements the PMIPv6 LMA functionality should allow both the MN and the authorized MAGs to modify the BCEs for the MN. This is serious, bestie 😭. The compromised MAG threat described in [RFC4832] also applies here, in a more severe form, as explained in Section 3.2. Scenario B relies on securely identifying MNs and their capabilities, so the right service can be provided to the right MNs. For instance, a malicious MN should not get the HoA of some other node assigned to it, and a MN that wants to run 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 the identification of node capabilities 💀.
6. Contributors 🫶
- Kuntal Chowdhury - kuntal@hotmail.com
- Vijay Devarapalli - vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
- Sri Gundavelli - sgundave@cisco.com
- Suresh Krishnan - suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
- Ahmad Muhanna - amuhanna@nortel.com
- Hesham Soliman - Hesham@elevatemobile.com
- George Tsirtsis - tsirtsis@googlemail.com
- Genadi Velev - Genadi.Velev@eu.panasonic.com
- Kilian Weniger - Kilian.Weniger@googlemail.com
7. Acknowledgements 💜
This document is a merge of four different documents: "Proxy Mobile IPv6 and Mobile IPv6 interworking issues" (April 2007), "Proxy Mobile IPv6 and Mobile IPv6 interworking" (April 2007), "Behavior of Collocated HA/LMA" (October 2008), and "Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues" (November 2007). Huge thanks to the authors and editors of those documents 🌸.
The authors would also like to thank Jonne Soininen and Vidya Narayanan, NETLMM WG chairs, for their support 👑.
8. References 📚
8.1. Normative References
- [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005.
- [RFC4832] Vogt, C. and J. Kempf, "Security Threats to Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)", RFC 4832, April 2007.
- [RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, April 2007.
- [RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007.
- [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
- [RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L. Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
- [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
- [RFC6611] Chowdhury, K., Ed. and A. Yegin, "Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario", RFC 6611, May 2012.
8.2. 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
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc6612 2012-05
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms