<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- edited with emacs version 23 by Alexandru Petrescu -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
    <!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC '' 
      'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
]>

<!-- <rfc category="info" ipr="full3978" -->
<rfc category="info" ipr="pre5378Trust200902"
     docName="draft-boc-netext-lr-roext-04.txt">

<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>

    <front>
        <title>RO Extensions for PMIPv6-LR (ROEXT)</title>

         <author initials='M. M.' surname="Boc"
		 fullname='Michael Mathias Boc'>
          <organization abbrev='CEA'>CEA, LIST</organization>
	  <address>
	    <postal>
	      <street>
		Communicating Systems Laboratory, Point Courrier 173
	      </street>
	      <city>
		Gif-sur-Yvette
	      </city>
	      <region>
	      </region>
	      <code>
		F-91191
	      </code>
	      <country>
		France
	      </country>
	    </postal>
	    <phone>
	      +33 169083976
	    </phone>
	    <email>
	      michael.boc@cea.fr
	    </email>
	  </address>
        </author>	

	
         <author initials='C.' surname="Janneteau"
		 fullname='Christophe Janneteau'>
          <organization abbrev='CEA'>CEA, LIST</organization>
	  <address>
	    <postal>
	      <street>
		Communicating Systems Laboratory, Point Courrier 173
	      </street>
	      <city>
		Gif-sur-Yvette
	      </city>
	      <region>
	      </region>
	      <code>
		F-91191
	      </code>
	      <country>
		France
	      </country>
	    </postal>
	    <phone>
	      +33 (0) 169089182
	    </phone>
	    <email>
	      christophe.janneteau@cea.fr
	    </email>
	  </address>
        </author>	

         <author initials='A.' surname="Petrescu" fullname='Alexandru Petrescu'>
          <organization abbrev='CEA'>CEA, LIST</organization>
	  <address>
	    <postal>
	      <street>
		Communicating Systems Laboratory, Point Courrier 173
	      </street>
	      <city>
		Gif-sur-Yvette
	      </city>
	      <region>
	      </region>
	      <code>
		F-91191
	      </code>
	      <country>
		France
	      </country>
	    </postal>
	    <phone>
	      +33 (0) 169089223
	    </phone>
	    <email>
	      alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr
	    </email>
	  </address>
        </author>

        <date/>
        <abstract>
	  <t>
	    The communication path between two Hosts within a Proxy
	    Mobile IPv6 domain is artificially long - it involves the
	    LMA, even if straight paths exist (under same MAG, or
	    MAG-to-MAG).  Localized Routing PMIPv6-LR concepts
	    developped by NETEXT WG make use of LRI/LRA messages to
	    achieve optimized MAG-to-MAG straight paths.  This may
	    prove inconvenient for the network operator, in that it
	    may loose ability to control traffic (LMA control point is
	    skipped).
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    In this draft we present a middle-ground solution.  It
	    employs new Intermediary Anchors (IAs) in the paths
	    between MAGs and offers points of control of traffic
	    useful for QoS and lawful interception.
	  </t>
	</abstract>
    </front>

    <middle>
        <section title="Requirements notation">
            <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
            "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
            and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
            described in <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
        </section>

	<section title="Concentrated Description">

	  <t>
	    The work presented in this draft is developped in the
	    context of Proxy Mobile IPv6 <xref target='RFC5213' /> and
	    uses LRI/LRA messages used by Localized Routing
	    <xref target='I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr' />.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The relevant scenarios are represented by communication
	    between two Hosts typically situated each under a
	    different MAG.
	  </t>

	  <figure align="center">
	    <artwork align="left">
                <![CDATA[

          -----                               -----
         | LMA |                             | LMA |
          -----                               -----
        /       \                            /      \
      / /       \ \                         /        \
     / /         \ \                       /          \signalling
    / /T1         \ \T2                   /            \
    /               \                    /              \
  -----           -----                 /                \
 | MAG1|         | MAG2|               /                  \
  -----           -----          -----  ================== -----
    |               |           | MAG1|   Direct Tunnel   | MAG2|
    |               |            -----                     -----
  --|--           --|--            |                         |
 |Host1|         |Host2|         --|--                     --|-- 
  -----           -----         |Host1|                   |Host2|
                                 -----                     ----- 

               ]]>  
            </artwork>
	  </figure>

	  <t>
	    In this figure, on the left side, the established tunnels
	    T1 and T2 for communication between Host1 and Host2 are
	    shown, after the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol has executed.
	    Each tunnel is established between LMA and the MAG under
	    which a Host is attached.  This illustration is typically
	    used to express a problem of too long communication paths.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    In the right part of the same figure, the Direct Tunnel
	    between two MAGs is illustrated as a solution to the
	    problem of artificially long paths through LMA.  This is
	    achieved by using Localized Routing concepts of Proxy
	    Mobile IPv6.  The diagonal lines represent signalling (not
	    wires).
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    There may exist situations when MAG-LMA-MAG communication
	    paths are too long and yet the straight MAG-MAG paths may
	    prove disadvantageous in terms of loss of operator control
	    on various aspects of the traffic.  A middle ground
	    solution as a bent arch path (not fully triangular, not
	    fully straight) may be needed.
	  </t>

	  <figure align="center">
	    <artwork align="left">
                <![CDATA[

                   -----  
                  | LMA |   
                   -----   
                  /  |   \   
                 /   |    \   
                /    |     \signalling   
               /     |      \  
              /      |       \  
             /       |        \  
            /      ----        \  
      -----  =====| IA |======= ----- 
     | MAG1|   T1  ----   T2   | MAG2|
      -----                     ----- 
        |                         |  
      --|--                     --|-- 
     |Host1|                   |Host2|
      -----                     ----- 
               ]]>  
            </artwork>
	  </figure>

	  <t>
	    In this figure a new entity is added between MAGs - the
	    Intermediate Anchor (IA).  The tunnels T1 and T2 are
	    established between the IA and the two MAGs respectively
	    (instead of LMA).  The IA serves purposes such as ensuring
	    a certain level of control over the route optimized
	    traffic, such as providing a certain level of
	    Quality-of-Service, or, potentially, enabling data traffic
	    enforcement for lawful interception.  Several such IAs may
	    be placed at strategic points within the Proxy Mobile IPv6
	    domain.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    The LMA is pre-configured statically with information
	    about the IP addresses of all MAGs, and, new, IAs in the
	    Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.
	  </t>
	  
	  <t>
	    To illustrate this procedure in a generic manner, we
	    consider two IAs instead of one.  In the following figure,
	    we assume that IA1 and IA2 are positioned in a
	    "sequential" manner between the MAG1 and MAG2.  This is to
	    illustrate that the mechanism pertains to situations where
	    more IAs are used, and not only one.
	  </t>

	  <t>
	    Initially, H1 and H2 exchange Data through the tunnels
	    setup by Proxy Mobile IPv6, via LMA and the respective
	    MAGs (the first 4 double-arrowed lines at the top of the
	    illustration) .
	  </t>

	  <figure align="center">
	    <artwork align="left">
	      <![CDATA[

   H1       H2       MAG1      MAG2     IA1     IA2      LMA
   |        |  Data   |         |        |       |        | 
   |<---------------->|         |        |       | Data   | 
   |        |         |<--------------------------------->| 
   |        |         |         |        |       | Data   | via LMA
   |        |         |   Data  |<----------------------->| and MAG
   |        |<----------------->|        |       |        | 
   |        |         |         |        |       |        | 
   |        |         |[Trigger RO procedure]    |LRI_IA1 | 
   |        |         |         |        |<---------------| 
   |        |         |         |        |LRA_IA1|        | 
   |        |         |         |        |--------------->| 
   |        |         |         |        |       |LRI_IA2 | RO
   |        |         |         |        |       |<-------| configure
   |        |         |         |        |       |LRA_IA2 | 
   |        |         |         |        |       |------->| 
   |        |         |       LRI_MAG1   |       |        | 
   |        |         |<--------------------------------- | 
   |        |         |       LRA_MAG1   |       |        |
   |        |         |---------------------------------->|
   |        |         |         |   LRI_MAG2     |        |
   |        |         |         |<------------------------|
   |        |         |         |   LRA_MAG2     |        |
   |        |         |         |------------------------>|
   |      Data        |         |        |       |        |
   |<---------------->| Data    |        |       |        |
   |        |         |<---------------->|       |        |
   |        |         |         |        | Data  |        |
   |        |         |         |        |<----->|        |
   |        |         |         | Data   |       |        | via IA
   |        |         |         |<-------------->|        | and MAG
   |        | Data    |         |        |       |        |
   |        |<----------------->|        |       |        |
		]]>  
	    </artwork>
	    
	  </figure>
	  <t>
	    Subsequently, a certain trigger (to be defined) starts
	    the Route Optimization procedure.  The procedure
	    consists in LRI and LRA messages.  The LMA sends an LRI
	    to IA1 and to IA2 respectively.  In a same centralized
	    manner, LMA sends the same type of messages to MAG1 and
	    MAG2 respectively.  There are as many LRI messages as
	    there are IAs plus (always) two MAGs.  The LRI messages
	    instruct the receivers about the IP addresses of the
	    entities in question.  For example, LRI_IA1 informs IA1
	    about the IP address of IA2.
	  </t>	  
	  <t>
	    When the last LRA has been received from a second MAG, it
	    can be considered that the paths have been "route
	    optimized", i.e. LMA is no longer in the path.  The Data
	    traffic between H1 and H2 is exchanged via IAs and MAGs
	    exclusively (LMA is skipped).
	  </t>

	    <t>
	      The following diagram shows a modified LRI message.
	    </t>
	    <figure align="center">
	      <artwork align="left">
		<![CDATA[
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                    |           Sequence #          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |R|S|I|  Reserved               |           Lifetime            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    .                                                               .
    .                        Mobility options                       .
    .                                                               .
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
               ]]>  
	      </artwork>
	    </figure>
	    <t>
	      'I' flag: if set to 1 it indicates that this message is
	                for an Intermediate Anchor.
	    </t>

	    <t>
	      The following diagram shows a modified LRA message.
	    </t>
	    <figure align="center">
	      <artwork align="left">
		<![CDATA[
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                    |           Sequence #          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |R|U|I| Reserved|   Status      |           Lifetime            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    .                                                               .
    .                        Mobility options                       .
    .                                                               .
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
               ]]>  
	      </artwork>
	    </figure>
	    <t>
	      'I' flag: if set to 1 it indicates that this message is
	                is sent by an Intermediate Anchor.
	    </t>	    	    

	  </section>

	<section title="LMA Behaviour">
	  <t>
	    LMA is pre-configured with each address of each MAG and of
	    each IA in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  In addition, it
	    has topology information about the placement of these
	    entities (IA, MAG) with respect to each other, and can
	    know the IP distances (hopcount) between each to each
	    other.  For example, for two given MAGs, it knows the
	    shortest path and the IP addresses of the intervening IAs.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    LMA is expecting a trigger indicating that the Route
	    Optimization procedure should start.  This trigger is to
	    be defined.  In one sense, LMA could deduce this trigger
	    when its Binding Cache is updated.  Speculatively, the
	    addresses stored in the Binding Cache could indicate that
	    two Hosts are under MAGs of same LMA, and that their
	    tunnels are using LMA.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    The LMA emits LRI messages and, for each LRI sent it waits
	    for an LRA.  It sends the following LRI only when the
	    preceding LRI has been arcknowledged by an LRA.
	  </t>
	</section>
	<section title="MAG Behaviour">
	  <t>
	    MAG receives LRI messages, and does not generate such.
	    When LRI is received, it executes indications contained in
	    it.  Upon completion, it sends LRA to the originator of
	    the LRI (the LMA) explaining the success or error of
	    execution.  MAG does not receive LRA.
	  </t>
	</section>
	<section title="IA Behaviour">
	  <t>
	    IA behaviour is similar to that of MAG.
	  </t>
	</section>

        <section title="Security Considerations">
        <t>
	  Lawful interception is probably the single most unique kind
	  of requirement difficult to fit within the otherwise very
	  powerful security architecture of Internet.  It is not
	  immediately obvious whether techniques addressing this
	  particular requirement effectively influence or are
	  influenced by Internet security.
	</t>
	<t>
	  LRI and LRA messages should be protected by using IPsec.
	</t>
        </section>
	

	<section anchor='Acknowledgements'
		 title='Acknowledgements'>
	  <t>
	    Other than Authors, a number of persons are involved with
	    implementation and protection of this technique.  For
	    example, Sofiane Imadali is designing and implementing a
	    testbed prototype with C, linux and Ethernet, under wise
	    guidance of advisor.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    Administratively, this work has been performed in the
	    framework of CELTIC project CP7-011 MEVICO. The authors
	    would like to acknowledge the contributions of their
	    colleagues, although the views expressed are those of the
	    authors and do not necessarily represent the project.
	    </t>
	</section>
    </middle>

    <back>
      <references title='Normative References'>
	&rfc2119;
	<?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5213" ?>
	<?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr" ?>	
      </references>
      <section anchor='changelog'
	     title='ChangeLog'>
      <t>
	The changes are listed in reverse chronological order, most
	recent changes appearing at the top of the list.
      </t>

      <t>
	From draft-boc-netext-lr-roext-03.txt to
	draft-boc-netext-lr-roext-04.txt:
	
	<list style='symbols'>
	  <t>
	    Date change, no content change.
	  </t>
	</list>	
      </t>      

      <t>
	From draft-boc-netext-lr-roext-01.txt to
	draft-boc-netext-lr-roext-02.txt:
	
	<list style='symbols'>
	  <t>
	    Changed affiliation from "CEA LIST" to "CEA, LIST" to
	    respect local guidelines.
	  </t>
	</list>	
      </t>
      <t>
	From draft-boc-netext-lr-roext-00.txt to
	draft-boc-netext-lr-roext-01.txt:
	
	<list style='symbols'>
	  <t>
	    The -00 version was mostly a placeholder.  Now with -01 we
	    updated the message exchange diagram and added its
	    respective explanatory text.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	    Added new sections intended to describe behaviour per
	    entity (LMA, IA, MAG).
	  </t>
	</list>	
      </t>
      
    </section>
    </back>

</rfc>
