Fast handovers for PMIPv6 Hidetoshi YokotaKDDI Lab Kuntal Chowdhury Starent Networks Rajeev KoodliNokia Research Center Basavaraj PatilNokia Siemens Networks IETF #69 Chicago

2 Background and motivation PMIPv6 is expected to be adopted in multiple SDOs (e.g. 3GPP SAE, 3GPP2 CAN) Service continuity during inter access gateway handover is critical for real-time applications WiMAX 3GPP2 CAN EPS HA P-GW/ S-GW/ MME non-3GPP GW AGW ASN-GW HA R3 (PMIPv6?) R4 U16 (PMIPv6) U15 S2a (PMIPv6) BS eBS eNodeB Non-3GPP RAN 3GPP SAE

3 Background and motivation (cont’d) FMIPv6 can be a common protocol for IP-level fast handover FMIPv6 is designed for MIPv6  Adaptation to PMIPv6 is needed It became clearer that context transfer is as much important as bearer packet forwarding to expedite the mobility management  Enhancement of FMIPv6 for context transfer is desired

4 Design principles Reuse FMIPv6 as much as possible  Minimum amendments for PMIPv6 MN is not involved with FMIP signaling  RtSolPr, PrRtAdv, FBU, FBAck and FNA are not used or replaced by lower layer signaling Context transfer is realized by FMIP signaling  Context is transferred by HI/Hack message exchange  Context information independent of access technologies are defined (e.g. NAI, MN-HoA…)  Context information dependent on access technologies are defined as Vendor-specific option

5 MN Predictive fast handover (PAR initiated) PARNAR HI P-ANN-AN Report (MN ID, New AP ID) (HO initiate, (MN ID, New AP ID) AN-AR connection establishment (substitute for FNA) HAck PBU PBA PAR NAR MN LLA LMA MN-AN connection establishment IPA(PCoA) IPA(NCoA) PAR NAR MN ID IPA(MH-HoA) IPA(LMA) NAR PAR IPA(NCoA) NAR PAR MN ID handover FMIPv6 PFMIPv6

6 MN Reactive fast handover (NAR initiated) PARNAR HI P-ANN-AN AN-AR connection establishment (substitute for FNA) HAck PBU PBA PAR NAR MN LLA LMA MN-AN connection establishment IPA(PCoA) IPA(NCoA) PAR NAR MN ID NAR PAR IPA(NCoA) NAR PAR MN ID handover IPA(MH-HoA) IPA(LMA) CRO(MH-HoA, LMA)

7 MN [Reference] Packet transfer between MN and CN/HA (FMIPv6) PARNAR PARNCoA CN/HA PCoA DL data encapsulation decapsulation NCoAPAR PCoA HI/HAck CN/HA PCoA DL data PCoA CN/HA UL data CN/HA UL data handover decapsulation FBU PARNCoA CN/HA PCoA DL data CN/HA PCoA DL data PCoA CN/HA UL data DL data NCoAPAR CN/HA PCoA DL data encapsulation

8 LMA MN Packet transfer between MN and CN (PFMIv6) PARNAR PARNAR CN HoA DL data LMA CN HoA DL data decapsulation HoA NARPAR HoA HI/HAck CN HoA DL data PAR CN HoA DL data CN HoA DL data encapsulation PARLMA HoA CN UL data CN UL data CN UL data CN UL data handover re-encapsulation PMIPv6 tunnel FMIPv6 tunnel encapsulation

9 New options for context transfer Major and common context information  NAI  new option  Tunnel-ID  new option  MN-HoA  new option-code for IP Address option  LMA  new option-code for IP Address option Technology-dependent context information  Vendor-specific option  new option Context Request Option  new option  Option to request context information (see next slide)

10 New options for context transfer Context Request Option  The Length field is in units of 8 octets (RFC4068) | Type | Length | Option-Code | Reserved | | Reserved | | Req-type-1 | Req-option-1 | Padding | | Padding | | Req-type-2 | Req-option-2 | Vendor-ID | | Vendor-ID | VS-Type | |... | When requested option is Vendor -specific option requested option common option header

11 Related work “Mobile Node Agnostic Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6”  Context transfer: HI/HAck for predictive FHO, FBU/FBAck for reactive FHO HI/HAck are ICMP, whereas FBU/FBAck are IP w/MH All options except MH LLA option are ICMP option FBU/FBAck are not suitable for context transfer  HI/HAck should be used  HI/HAck are identical to RFC4068 Behaviors of PAR/NAR are different from RFC4068 MIPv6 and PMIPv6 operations could be coexistent HI/HAck for PMIPv6 should be distinguished  LUP message between t-BS and NMAG may be ok for e, but not for 3G

12 Way forward Fast handover protocol for PMIPv6 is important work  should be in the charter  MIPSHOP WG is a more appropriate place to discuss fast handover?? Fast handover protocol for PMIPv6 should be common to various access technologies that (potentially) use PMIPv6  3GPP, 3GPP2 (and WiMAX)  Common context information and call flows should be specified