1 / 4

Behcet Sarikaya Frank Xia July 2012

Behcet Sarikaya Frank Xia July 2012. Flow Binding Extensions to PMIPv6 IETF 84. draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02. Problem Statement. LMA initiated flow mobility is not possible in PMIPv6 of RFC 5213 PMIPv6 Multihoming extension (RFC 5213) treats each interface independently

medea
Télécharger la présentation

Behcet Sarikaya Frank Xia July 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Behcet SarikayaFrank XiaJuly 2012 Flow Binding Extensions to PMIPv6IETF 84 draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02

  2. Problem Statement LMA initiated flow mobility is not possible in PMIPv6 of RFC 5213 PMIPv6 Multihoming extension (RFC 5213) treats each interface independently LMA does not know about different interfaces MN may have, LMA does not manage bindings from different interfaces of the mobile node in an integrated fashion Each interface creates a different independent mobility session at the LMA, just like an interface from another MN MN uses different source addresses when sending packets over these interfaces Flow mobility is not possible

  3. draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions We have a simple solution: The bindings in binding cache from each interface are kept together so that the flows can be moved among interfaces. MN may have as many binding entries as it has active interfaces, one “home” and many “secondary”, flagged “H” or “S” A new H flag in HNP option is set to ‘H’ for home and ‘S’ for other interfaces Incoming flows always directed to home interface, flow state set at LMA to direct flows to different active interfaces MN always sends non-local packets with source address assigned from HNPs of its home “H” interface

  4. draft-sarikaya-netext-pmipv6-shared-link-01 Wi-Fi or IEEE 802.11 provides a shared link PMIPv6 is designed for point-to-point links, i.e. cellular links Why do we need to run PMIPv6 on Wi-Fi? The answer is SaMOG or s2a interface for FMC Issues: MAG sends RA with HNPs for MN to FF02::1 which could be received by other MNs serious MN may receive NS messages from nodes other than MAG due to IPv6 solicited-node multicast address may map to more than one nodes Less probable Multicast data using MLD: problems TBD

More Related