Presentation on theme: "PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-ro-ps-01.txt Marco Liebsch, Sangjin Jeong, Qin Wu IETF75 - Stockholm NetExt WG, 30."— Presentation transcript:
PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-ro-ps-01.txt Marco Liebsch, Sangjin Jeong, Qin Wu IETF75 - Stockholm NetExt WG, 30 th July 2009
PMIPv6 Localized Routing Objective: Establish and maintain (during handover) local forwarding of packets for two MNs without traversing the MNs LMA(s) Motivation –Using the default path through the MNs mobility anchor(s) may be sub-optimal for local communications inside a PMIPv6 domain –Using a more direct path allows for Reducing the load from LMAs Potentially improves the end-to-end performance (delay, packet loss)
Problem description Mobile nodes have no control on setting up localized routes –Fundamental difference to host mobility, such as Mobile IPv6 route optimization Infrastructure components need to take over the role to set up and maintain states for localized routing –Detection of when to set up localized routing –Initiation of signaling to set up routing states –Possibly discovery of relevant stateful entities to address signaling for localized routing –Control about updating localized routing states in case of handover –Termination of localized routing
Reference architecture LMA1LMA2 MAG1 MAG2 MN CN Non-optimized data path data [MN CN] Forwarding Tunnel Optimized data path Relevant network and interfaces for the protocol solution!
Reference architecture (contd) LMA1LMA2 MAG1 MN CN Non-optimized data path data [MN CN] Forwarding Tunnel Relevant network and interfaces for the protocol solution! Optimized data path
Changes in version 01 Added note about RFC5213 understanding of localized routing and relevance in NetExt (Carlos) Added functional requirement to terminate localize routing states (Hidetoshi) Some editorial revision Added chapter about IPv4 considerations
Before entering the solution space…...we need to agree on a couple of things
Agree on term Localized Routing vs. Route Optimization Different understanding (MAG-local, Domain-local) Even charter mixes both So far agreement to stick to Localized Routing... –...but includes optimized routing path beyond a single MAG!
Agree on scope Functional Use cases –Single MAG –Multiple MAGs –Multiple LMAs IPv4 considerations –Localized Routing between IPv4 HoAs –IPv4 Address space overlap –IPv4 Transport Network issues –NAT presence issues
IPv4 HoA Localized Routing Requirements Encapsulation of IPv4 packets at MAG Routing state for each MN-CN pair Source/Dest routing for localized routing of uplink packets at MAGs General question Encapsulation mode negotiation between MAGs? –Proposal: Lightweight capabilty exchange with selection
IPv4 Transport Network MAGs may use different transport to LMA Negotiate transport between MNs and CNs MAG?
IPv4 Address space overlap Same HoA assigned to multiple MNs (different operators) from an overlapping address space Destination MAG (MAG1) issue –Both MNs attached to the same MAG –Dispatch downlink traffic Source MAG (MAG2) issue –Both MNs attach to different MAGs –Select correct tunnel GRE Key negotiation phase in scope of protocol solution? IP: B LMA1LMA2 MAG1 MAG2 MNa CN MNb IP: A B A
NAT presence NAT between MAGs –Real issue for LR in single PMIPv6 domain? –NAT detection and NAT traversal mechanism in scope of solution? NAT between LMAs –Real issue for LR in single PMIPv6 domain? –NAT detection and NAT traversal mechanism in scope of solution?
Last but not least… Status: Problem statement document mature and covers all discussed items –Anything missing? –More comments? WG indicated interest in having an Informational PS for Localized Routing Make this draft a WG document?
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.