1 / 10

DHCP - Prefix Delegation for NEMO

59th IETF, NEMO WG. DHCP - Prefix Delegation for NEMO. Ralph Droms (Cisco) Pascal Thubert (Cisco). Problem Summary. Delegation of prefixes from home network to MR Delegation of local prefixes to MR for hierarchical NEMO. Delegation from HA to MR.

schuyler
Télécharger la présentation

DHCP - Prefix Delegation for NEMO

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. 59th IETF, NEMO WG DHCP - Prefix Delegation for NEMO Ralph Droms (Cisco) Pascal Thubert (Cisco)

  2. Problem Summary • Delegation of prefixes from home network to MR • Delegation of local prefixes to MR for hierarchical NEMO NEMO WG - IETF 59

  3. Delegation from HA to MR • MR needs prefixes from home network to be assigned within mobile network • Proposal: Use DHCPv6 (through tunnel) for prefix delegation • HA acts as DR, MR acts as RR • HA configured with prefixes from home network • HA acts as DHCPv6 relay agent for other configuration • MR acts as DHCPv6 relay agent for MNs NEMO WG - IETF 59

  4. Use of DHCPv6 for Delegation • Provides a dynamic provisioning of NEMO-prefixes • Controls the NEMO-prefix lifecycle • Can be coupled with a backend authorization system for basic nemo explicit prefix mode • Similar to draft-paakkonen-nemo-prefix-delegation; reuses NEMO and DHCPv6 PD • Could be coupled with NAI for full discovery • (ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/mipdrafts/MIPv6/draft-patel-mipv6-nai-option-01.txt) NEMO WG - IETF 59

  5. Local Delegation for Hierarchical NEMO • Latest draft: draft-droms-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-01.txt • A new Local Mobility Management Model • To NEMO what HMIP is to MIPv6 • (So keep in mind the HMIP model) • Standards based (NEMO + DHCP-PD) NEMO WG - IETF 59

  6. DHCP-PD based LMM (1) • Access router for visited link (AR-VL) owns an aggregation • AR-VL is NEMO HA for that aggregation • AR-VL is also DHCP-PD for that aggregation • MR builds local CoA from AR-VL prefix • MR obtains prefix from AR-VL via DHCP-PD • MR exposes delegated prefix as NEMO-prefix NEMO WG - IETF 59

  7. DHCP-PD based LMM (2) • MR binds Delegated Prefix to AR-VL using NEMO explicit prefix (from local CoA) • MR autoconfigures a global CoA from its Delegated Prefix to bind its own NEMO-prefixes to its HA • Only the Delegated Prefix is exposed for visitors to build a CoA • Recursively, MRs build a local CoA Address from visited Prefix, forming a tree • Visitors packets are tunneled to AR (as a local HA), not to MR Home NEMO WG - IETF 59

  8. Advantages of the solution Inherits HMIP benefits for LMM • When a MR moves within the tree of a given AR-VL, the MR keeps its delegated prefix • the global CareOf from delegated prefix does not change so no need to rebind Home • MR builds a new Local CoA from same AR-VL’s aggregation and rebinds its Delegated Prefix to AR-VL using NEMO • When moving outside of the AR-VL tree, the MR may keep the Delegated Prefix and bind it from outside for a small period of time Nested NEMO Route Optimization • Visitors packets are tunneled to AR-VL (as a local HA), not to MR Home • AR-VL decapsulates nested tunnels and forwards only the inner MR-HA tunnel • So no pinball routing and no nested tunnels in the Infrastructure • Local Nested tunnels can be saved using Reverse Routing Header Security • Visitors packets can not attack Home since they are not sent over MR-HA • AR-VL can be used for AAA, filtering and firewalling purposes Privacy between visitors and visited in nested NEMO • Only local delegated prefixes are exposed in the clear for visitors • Visitors can uses RFC 3041 to protect their ID when building their local CoA • Visitors can use ESP to protect their data Standards based • Mostly reuses standards flows (NEMO + DHCP-PD from draft 0) NEMO WG - IETF 59

  9. Example of DHCP-PD based LMM HA1 HA2 NEMO binding: MR1 via DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::MR1 AR owns DHCP:AGGR:DHCP::/48 MR1 autoconfs DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:DHCP::MR1 MR1 gets DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::/64 from AR using DHCP-PD MR1 binds DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::/64 with CoA DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:DHCP::MR1 to AR using NEMO Explicit Prefix MR1 autoconfs DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::MR1 MR1 binds its own MNets with CoA DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::MR1 to HA1 MR2 autoconfs DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::MR2 MR1 tunnels MR2’s packets to AR Etc… NEMO binding: MR2 via DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR2::MR2 AR HA DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:DHCP::DHCP Access Link DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:DHCP::/64 DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:DHCP::MR1 MR1 Other MR MN DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::MR1 Delegated MNet DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::/64 DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR1::MR2 MR2 Other MR MN DHCP:AGGR:MR1:MR2::MR2 Delegated MNet DHCP:AGGR:DHCP:MR2::/64 NEMO WG - IETF 59

  10. Mailing List issues • ? NEMO WG - IETF 59

More Related