1 PPP Free Operation Mobility Management January 16, 2006 Jun Wang, Pete Barany, Raymond Hsu Qualcomm Inc Notice: Contributors grant free, irrevocable license to 3GPP2 and its Organization Partners to incorporate text or other copyrightable material contained in the contribution and any modifications thereof in the creation of 3GPP2 publications; to copyright and sell in Organizational Partner’s name any Organizational Partner’s standards publication even though it may include portions of the contribution; and at the Organization Partner’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part such contributions or the resulting Organizational Partner’s standards publication. Contributors are also willing to grant licenses under such contributor copyrights to third parties on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms and conditions for purpose of practicing an Organizational Partner’s standard which incorporates this contribution. This document has been prepared by the contributors to assist the development of specifications by 3GPP2. It is proposed to the Committee as a basis for discussion and is not to be construed as a binding proposal on the contributors. The contributors specifically reserves the right to amend or modify the material contained herein and nothing herein shall be construed as conferring or offering licenses or rights with respect to any intellectual property of the contributors other than provided in the copyright statement above.

2 PFO Mobility Management

3 Proposals Add Home Agent for Local Mobility (LMHA): –To allow scalable distributed architecture: –The foot print of PDSN can be small (easy to maintain Always ON) –PDSN/PCF/BSC can be co-located in a real deployment –To allow cross PDSN mobility without MIP tunneling overhead and MIP signaling overhead over the air –To allow IP address unchanged after inter-PDSN handoff –Functions of LMHA: –IP address of the MS/AT is preserved within the foot print of LMHA –Mobility Management by acting as a MIP Home Agent (MN is in PDSN) The Interface between PDSN and LMHA is IETF MIP protocol: –IETF standard protocol used for cross PDSN mobility –No need current P-P interface anymore –Current P-P interface is 3GPP2 specific –Need PDSN-PDSN Signaling interface for transferring state

4 Call Flows for PFO (1) (for Simple IPv4 MS)

5 Call Flows for PFO (2) (for Simple IPv6)

6 Call Flows for PFO (3) (for MIP4 MS)

7 Call Flows for PFO (3) (for MIP6 MS)

8 Inter-PDSN Handoff Use the same PDSN (Anchored PDSN) during active data session as much as it can Each RAN has a Preferred PDSN Dormant Handoff: –When the active data session goes to Dormancy: –If the RAN doesn’t connect with preferred PDSN, the RAN moves A10 to the preferred PDSN and it triggers the new PDSN to get TFT info from source PDSN via P-P signaling interface, or –If the serving RAN wants to transfer the session to the target RAN (when the MS moves too far from the serving RAN) and the target RAN will connect to Target PDSN, the Target PDSN will get TFT info from source PDSN via P-P signaling interface –No signaling is needed to be exchanged between the MS and the target PDSN (Save over the air resource) Active Handoff: –Active Hard Handoff –Make before break Handoff When the PDSN is changed to the preferred PDSN: –The new PDSN will trigger Binding Update to the LMHA

9 Inter-PDSN Handoff

10 Inter-PDSN Dormant Handoff

11 Inter-PDSN Active Hard Handoff

12 Inter-PDSN Active Handoff (Make Before Break)

13 Advantages of the Proposal Minimum standard changes to current 3GPP2 packet data network Allows both centralized and distributed architecture Smooth transition from the current architecture to new evolved architecture IETF standard PDSN-LMHA interface compared with P-P interface Allows cross PDSN mobility without MIP tunneling overhead and MIP signaling overhead over the air Allow IP address unchanged after inter-PDSN handoff even for Simple IP

14 Recommendations Review and adopt the proposal specified in this contribution Add LMHA functional entity in IS-835-E for PFO Network

15 Annex Alternative Approaches (1) Alternative 1: Keep using current P-P Interface for both Simple IP and Mobile IP. Disadvantage: –P-P interface is 3GPP2 Specific interface –Consume considerable amount of network resource at the PDSN: –Need to maintain P-P session between the anchor and target PDSN for the duration of an active data session. –Need GRE Tunnel between the anchor and target PDSN for the duration of an active data session –Need to release P-P interface if all connected service instances on the Target RAN go dormant: –Need a session setup between the MS and target PDSN (Authentication etc) –Need to Resend TFT from the MS –Use OTA resources inefficiently

16 Annex Alternative Approaches (2) Alternative 2: –Simple IP: Same as Alternative 1 –Mobile IP: –MIPv4: –Option 1: Once goes to Dormant, start MIP registration procedures –MIPv6: –Option 1: Once goes to Dormant, start Simple IP procedures (RA) –Option 2: FMIP Disadvantage: –Different operation for Simple IP and Mobile IP –All disadvantages of P-P Interface apply to Simple IP –Use OTA resources inefficiently

17 FMIP (Predictive mode)

18 FMIP (Reactive mode ; no NCoA collision)

19 FMIP (Reactive mode ; w/ NCoA collision)