1. IETF67 B. Patil, Gopal D., S. Gundavelli, K. Chowdhury
Proxy MIP6
IETF67
B. Patil, Gopal D., S. Gundavelli, K. Chowdhury

2. Why Proxy operation of MIP6?
SDOs like 3GPP2/WMF have shown interest
They are currently incorporating MIP6 in their specs
Operators planning on deploying MIP6 have a strong need for proxy operation
Proxy operation is an incremental feature addition that reuses the investment in the MIP6 infra
Suport for hosts that do not have MIP6 client

3. Scope of PMIP6
Extension to MIP6 specification (RFC 3775) enabling proxy operation for IPv6 hosts
i.e host is not involved in the mobility management
Reuse MIP6 signaling and, the Home agent function
Minimal changes to support the security model that the proxy operation necessiates

4. What PMIP6 is not A mobility solution for micro mobility
i.e mobility in an access network
Intended to solve the problem of localized mobility management
A solution for mobility across administrative domains

5. Present status Two Proxy MIP6 proposals exist
draft-sgundave-mip-pmipv6-00
draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01
Interest in Proxy MIP6 as a network based mobility solution has been expressed by other SDOs (although not in any formal manner to the IETF)
Discussion on the ML in MIP6 and NETLMM arguing for standardizing PMIP6

6. draft-sgundave-mip-pmipv6-00.txt Summary:
Provides Network based mobility management support for IPv6 hosts.
Leverages Mobile IPv6 Home Agent Infrastructure and the protocol messaging
Minimal changes to the Mobile IPv6 Home Agent
- Supports PER-MN-PREFIX and PER-MN-ADDRESS models.
- Supports Stateless and Statefull address configuration modes
Next Revision:
MN flow identification in the tunnel
Update the document based with any missing details

7. draft-chowdhury-netmip6-01.txt
Defines IP session setup procedures with PMIP6
Supports both IPv6 and IPv4 addressing
Reuses MIP6 base protocol (RFC 3775) for mobility management
No new MH, MO required
Addresses Inter Access Router (AR) handoffs
Inter AR signaling with ICMPv6 extensions
Includes HMIP6 consideration
Proxy HMIP6 within the MAP footprint

8. Question to WG
Given the limited scope of Proxy operation of MIP6 (as discussed)
Should the IETF standardize a PMIP6 solution?
Next steps:
???

9. ? ? ? ? ? ?