Behcet sarikaya frank xia july 2012
1 / 4

Behcet Sarikaya Frank Xia July 2012 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Behcet Sarikaya Frank Xia July 2012' - medea

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Behcet sarikaya frank xia july 2012

Behcet SarikayaFrank XiaJuly 2012

Flow Binding Extensions to PMIPv6IETF 84


Problem statement
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

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

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


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