<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-09"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="On Demand Mobility">On Demand Mobility Management</title>

    <author fullname="Alper Yegin" initials="A." surname="Yegin">
      <organization abbrev="Actility">Actility</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Istanbul</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>Turkey</country>
        </postal>
        <email>alper.yegin@actility.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Danny Moses" initials="D." surname="Moses">
      <organization abbrev="Intel">Intel Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Petah Tikva</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>Israel</country>
        </postal>
        <email>danny.moses@intel.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Kisuk Kweon" initials="K." surname="Kweon">
      <organization abbrev="Samsung">Samsung</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Suwon</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>South Korea</country>
        </postal>
        <email>kisuk.kweon@samsung.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Jinsung Lee" initials="J." surname="Lee">
      <organization abbrev="Samsung">Samsung</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Suwon</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>South Korea</country>
        </postal>
        <email>js81.lee@samsung.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Jungshin Park" initials="J." surname="Park">
      <organization abbrev="Samsung">Samsung</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Suwon</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>South Korea</country>
        </postal>
        <email>shin02.park@samsung.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Seil Jeon" initials="S." surname="Jeon">
      <organization>Sungkyunkwan University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city>Suwon</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>South Korea</country>
        </postal>
        <email>seiljeon@skku.edu</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>

    <workgroup>DMM Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>Applications differ with respect to whether they need IP session 
	  continuity and/or IP address reachability. The network providing the 
	  same type of service to any mobile host and any application running on 
	  the host yields inefficiencies. This document describes a solution for 
	  taking the application needs into account in selectively providing IP 
	  session continuity and IP address reachability on a per-socket 
	  basis.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  
  
  <middle>
    <section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">

        <t>In the context of Mobile IP <xref target="RFC5563"></xref><xref
            target="RFC6275"></xref><xref target="RFC5213"></xref><xref target="RFC5944"></xref>, 
			following two attributes are defined for the IP service provided to the 
			mobile hosts:</t>
            
            <t>IP session continuity: The ability to maintain an ongoing IP session 
			by keeping the same local end-point IP address throughout the session 
			despite the mobile host changing its point of attachment within the IP 
			network topology. The IP address of the host may change between two 
			independent IP sessions, but that does not jeopardize the IP session 
			continuity. IP session continuity is essential for mobile hosts to 
			maintain ongoing flows without any interruption.</t>
            
            <t>IP address reachability: The ability to maintain the same IP address 
			for an extended period of time. The IP address stays the same across 
			independent IP sessions, and even in the absence of any IP session. The 
			IP address may be published in a long-term registry (e.g., DNS), and it 
			is made available for serving incoming (e.g., TCP) connections. IP 
			address reachability is essential for mobile hosts to use 
			specific/published IP addresses.</t>
            
            <t>Mobile IP is designed to provide both IP session continuity and IP 
			address reachability to mobile hosts. Architectures utilizing these 
			protocols (e.g., 3GPP, 3GPP2, WIMAX) ensure that any mobile host 
			attached to the compliant networks can enjoy these benefits. Any 
			application running on these mobile hosts is subjected to the same 
			treatment with respect to the IP session continuity and IP address 
			reachability.</t>
            
            <t>It should be noted that in reality not every application may need 
			those benefits. IP address reachability is required for applications 
			running as servers (e.g., a web server running on the mobile host). But, 
			a typical client application (e.g., web browser) does not necessarily 
			require IP address reachability. Similarly, IP session continuity is not 
			required for all types of applications either. Applications performing 
			brief communication (e.g., DNS client) can survive without having IP 
			session continuity support.</t>
            
            <t>Achieving IP session continuity and IP address reachability by using 
			Mobile IP incurs some cost. Mobile IP protocol forces the mobile host's 
			IP traffic to traverse a centrally-located router (Home Agent,  HA), 
			which incurs additional transmission latency and use of additional 
			network resources, adds to the network CAPEX and OPEX, and decreases the 
			reliability of the network due to the introduction of a single point of 
			failure <xref target="RFC7333"></xref>. Therefore, IP 
			session continuity and IP address reachability should be be provided 
			only when needed.</t>
            
            <t>Furthermore, when an application needs session continuity, it may be 
			able to satisfy that need by using a solution above the IP layer, such 
			as MPTCP <xref target="RFC6824"></xref>, SIP mobility <xref 
			target="RFC3261"></xref>, or an application-layer mobility solution. Those 
			higher-layer solutions are not subject to the same issues that arise 
			with the use of Mobile IP since they can utilize the most direct data 
			path between the end-points. But, if Mobile IP is being applied to the 
			mobile host, those higher-layer protocols are rendered useless because 
			their operation is inhibited by the Mobile IP. Since Mobile IP ensures 
			that the IP address of the mobile host remains fixed (despite the location 
			and movement of the mobile host), the higher-layer protocols never 
			detect the IP-layer change and never engage in mobility management.</t>
            
            <t>This document proposes a solution for the applications running on the 
			mobile host to indicate whether they need IP session continuity or IP 
			address reachability. The network protocol stack on the mobile host, in 
			conjunction with the network infrastructure, would provide the required 
			type of IP service. It is for the benefit of both the users and the 
			network operators not to engage an extra level of service unless it is 
			absolutely necessary. So it is expected that applications and networks 
			compliant with this specification would utilize this solution to use 
			network resources more efficiently.</t>



    </section>

    <section anchor="notation" title="Notational Conventions">
      <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"></xref>.</t>

    </section>



    <section anchor="solution" title="Solution">

        <section anchor="addresstypes" title="Types of IP Addresses">
        
        <t> Three types of IP addresses are defined with respect to the 
		mobility management.</t>
        
        <t>- Fixed IP Address</t>
        
        <t> A Fixed IP address is an address with a guarantee to be valid  for a 
		very long time, regardless of whether it is being used in any packet 
		to/from the mobile host, or whether or not the mobile host is 
		connected to the network, or whether it moves from one 
		point-of-attachment to another (with a different subnet or IP prefix) 
		while it is connected.</t>
        
		<t>Fixed IP addresses are required by applications that need both IP 
		session continuity and IP address reachability.</t>
        
        <t>- Session-lasting IP Address</t>
        
        <t>A session-lasting IP address is an address with a guarantee to be 
		valid throughout the IP session(s) for which it was requested. It is 
		guaranteed to be valid even after the mobile host had moved from one 
		point-of-attachment to another (with a different subnet or IP 
		prefix).</t>

        <t>Session-lasting IP addresses are required by applications that need 
		IP session continuity but do not need IP address reachability.</t>
              
        <t>- Non-persistent IP Address</t>
        
        <t>This type of IP address provides neither IP session continuity nor 
		IP address reachability. The IP address is obtained from the serving 
		IP gateway and it is not maintained across gateway changes. In other 
		words, the IP address may be released and replaced by a new IP address 
		when the IP gateway changes due to the movement of the mobile 
		host.</t>
        
        <t>Applications running as servers at a published IP address require a 
		Fixed IP Address.  Long-standing applications (e.g., an SSH session) 
		may also require this type of address. Enterprise applications that 
		connect to an enterprise network via virtual LAN require a Fixed IP 
		Address.</t>
        
        <t>Applications with short-lived transient IP sessions can use 
		Session-lasting IP Addresses. For example: Web browsers.</t>
        
        <t>Applications with very short IP sessions, such as DNS clients and 
		instant messengers, can utilize Non-persistent IP Addresses. Even 
		though they could very well use Fixed or Session-lasting IP 
		Addresses, the transmission latency would be minimized when a 
		Non-persistent IP Addresses are used.</t>

        <t>The network creates the desired guarantee (Fixed, Session-lasting 
		or Non-persistent) by either assigning the address prefix 
		(as part of a stateless address generation process), or by assigning 
		an IP address (as part of a	stateful IP address generation).</t>
		
		<t>The exact mechanism of prefix or address assignment is outside the 
		scope of this specification.</t>
        </section>
        
        <section anchor="granularity" title="Granularity of Selection">
        
        <t>The IP address type selection is made on a per-socket granularity. 
		Different parts of the same application may have different needs. For 
		example, control-plane of an application may require a Fixed IP 
		Address in order to stay reachable, whereas data-plane of the same 
		application may be satisfied with a Session-lasting IP Address.</t>
        </section>
        
        <section anchor="ondemand" title="On Demand Nature">
            
        
        <t>At any point in time, a mobile host may have a combination of IP 
		addresses configured. Zero or more Non-persistent, zero or more 
		Session-lasting, and zero or more Fixed IP addresses may be configured 
		on the IP stack of the host. The combination may be as a result of the 
		host policy, application demand, or a mix of the two.</t>
        
        <t>When an application requires a specific type of IP address and such 
		address is not already configured on the host, the IP stack shall 
		attempt to configure one. For example, a host may not always have a 
		Session-lasting IP address available. When an application requests 
		one, the IP stack shall make an attempt to configure one by issuing a 
		request to the network. If the operation fails, the IP stack shall 
		fail the associated socket request. If successful, a Session-lasting 
		IP Address gets configured on the mobile host. If another socket 
		requests a Session-lasting IP address at a later time, the same IP 
		address may be served to that socket as well. When the last socket 
		using the same configured IP address is closed, the IP address may be 
		released or kept for future applications that may be launched and 
		require a Session-lasting IP address.</t>
		
		<t>In some cases it might be preferable for the mobile host to request 
		a new Session-lasting IP address for a new opening of an IP session 
		(even though one was already assigned to the mobile host by the 
		network and might be in use in a different, already active IP 
		session).  It is outside the scope of this specification to define 
		criteria for selecting to use available addresses or choose to request 
		new ones. It supports both alternatives (and any combination).</t>
		
		<t>It is outside the scope of this specification to define how the 
		host requests a specific type of address (Fixed, Session-lasting or 
		Non-persistent) and how the network indicates the type of address in 
		its advertisement of IP prefixes or addresses (or in its reply to a 
		request).</t>
        
		<t>The following are matters of policy, which may be dictated by the 
		host itself, the network operator, or the system architecture 
		standard:</t>
        
        <t> - The initial set of IP addresses configured on the host at boot 
		time.</t>
        <t>- Permission to grant various types of IP addresses to a requesting 
		application.</t>
        <t>- Determination of a default address type when an application does 
		not make any explicit indication, whether it already supports the 
		required API or it is just a legacy application.</t>
        
        </section>
        
        <section anchor="conveying" title="Conveying the Selection">

        <t>The selection of the address type is conveyed from the applications 
		to the IP stack in oredr to influence the source address selection 
		algorithm <xref target="RFC6724"></xref>.</t>
        
        <t>The current source address selection algorithm operates on the 
		available set of IP addresses, when selecting an address. According to 
		the proposed solution, if the requested IP address type is not 
		available at the time of the request, the IP stack shall make an 
		attempt to configure one such IP address. The selected IP address 
		shall be compliant with the requested IP address type, whether it is 
		selected among available addresses or dynamically configured. In the 
		absence of a matching type (because it is not available and not 
		configurable on demand), the source address selection algorithm shall 
		return an empty set.</t>
        
        <t>A Socket API-based interface for enabling applications to influence 
		the source address selection algorithm is described in <xref 
		target="RFC5014"></xref>. That specification defines IPV6_ADDR_PREFERENCES 
		option at the IPPROTO_IPV6 level. That option can be used with 
		setsockopt() and getsockopt() calls to set and get address selection 
		preferences.</t>
        
        <t>Furthermore, that RFC also specifies two flags that relate to IP 
		mobility management: IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME and IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA. 
		These flags are used for influencing the source address selection to 
		prefer either a Home Address or a Care-of Address.</t>
        
        <t>Unfortunately, these flags do not satisfy the aforementioned needs 
		due to the following reasons:</t>
        
        <t>- Current flags indicate a "preference" whereas there is a need for 
		indicating "requirement". Source address selection algorithm does not 
		have to produce an IP address compliant with the "preference" , but it 
		has to produce an IP address compliant with the "requirement". </t>
        
        <t>- Current flags influence the selection made among available IP 
		addresses. The new flags force the IP stack to configure a compliant 
		IP address if none is available at the time of the request.</t>
        
        <t>- The Home vs. Care-of Address distinction is not sufficient to 
		capture the three different types of IP addresses described in Section 
		2.1.</t>
        
        <t>The following new flags are defined in this document and they shall 
		be used with Socket API in compliance with <xref 
		target="RFC5014"></xref>:</t>
        <t>IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP /* Require a Fixed IP address as source */</t>
        <t>IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP /* Require a Session-lasting IP 
		address as source */</t>
        <t>IPV6_REQUIRE_NON-PERSISTENT_IP /* Require a Non-persistent IP 
		address as source */</t>
        
        <t>Only one of these flags may be set on the same socket. If an 
		application attempts to set more than one flag, the most recent 
		setting will be the one in effect. </t>
        
        <t>When any of these new flags is used, the IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME 
		and IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA flags, if used, shall be ignored.</t>
        
        <t>These new flags are used with setsockopt()/getsockopt(), 
		getaddrinfo(), and inet6_is_srcaddr() functions <xref 
		target="RFC5014"></xref>. Similar to the setsockopt()/getsockopt() calls, 
		the getaddrinfo() call shall also trigger configuration of the required 
		IP address type, if one is not already available. When the new flags 
		are used with getaddrinfo() and the triggered configuration fails, the 
		getaddrinfo() call shall ignore that failure (i.e., not return an 
		error code to indicate that failure). Only the setsockopt() shall 
		return an error when configuration of the requested IP address type
		fails.</t>
		
		<t>When the IP stack is required to use a source IP address of a 
		specified type, it can perform one of the following: It can use an 
		existing address (if it has one), or it can create a new one from an 
		existing prefix of the desired type. If the host does not already 
		have an IPv6 prefix of the specific type, it can request one from the 
		network.</t>

		<t>Using an existing address from an existing prefix is faster but 
		might yield a less optimal route (if a hand-off event occurred since its 
		configuration), on the other hand, acquiring a new IP prefix from the 
		network may take some time (due to signaling exchange with the 
		network) and may fail due to network policies.</t>
		
		<t>An additional new flag - ON_NET flag - enables the application to 
		direct the IP stack whether to use a preconfigured source IP address 
		(if exists) or to request a new IPv6 prefix from the current serving 
		network and configure a new IP address:</t>
        
		<t>IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET /* Set IP stack address allocation behavior 
		*/</t>
		
		<t>If set, the IP stack will request a new IPv6 prefix of the desired 
		type from the current serving network and configure a new source IP address.
		If reset, the IP stack will use a preconfigured one if exists. If there is no 
		preconfigured IP address of the desired type, the IP stack will request a IPv6 
		prefix from the current serving network (regardless of whether this flag is set 
		or not).</t>
		
		<t>The ON_NET flag must be used together with one of the 3 flags defined 
		above. If ON_NET flag is used without any of these flags, it must be 
		ignored. If the ON_NET flag is not used, the IP stack is free to either 
		use an existing IP address (if preconfigured) or access the network to 
		configure a new one (the decision is left to implementation).</t>
		
		<t>The following new error codes are also defined in the document and 
		will be used in the Socket API in compliance with <xref 
		target="RFC5014"></xref>.</t>
		
        <t>EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED /* The network does not support the 
		ability to request that specific IP address type */</t>
		
		<t>EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED /* The network could not assign that specific 
		IP address type */</t>
		</section>

    </section>
      
  
    <section anchor="compatibility" title="Backwards Compatibility Considerations">
	<t> Backwards compatibility support is required by the following 3 types 
	of entities: </t>
	<t>- The Applications on the mobile host</t>
	<t>- The IP stack in the mobile host</t>
	<t>- The network infrastructure </t>
   
    <section anchor="applications" title="Applications">
	<t>Legacy applications that do not support the new flags will use the 
	legacy API to the IP stack and will not enjoy On-Demand Mobility 
	feature. </t>	
	<t> Applications using the new flags must be aware that they may be 
	executed in environments that do not support the On-Demand Mobility 
	feature. Such environments may include legacy IP stack in the mobile 
	host, legacy network infrastructure, or both. In either case, the API 
	will return an error code and the invoking applications must respond 
	with using legacy calls without the On-Demand Mobility feature. </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="stack" title="IP Stack in the Mobile Host">
	<t>New IP stacks must continue to support all legacy operations. If an 
	application does not use On-Demand Mobility feature, the IP stack must 
	respond in a legacy manner.</t>
		<t> If the network infrastructure supports On-Demand Mobility feature, 
	the IP stack should follow the application request: If the application 
	requests a specific address type, the stack should forward this 
	request to the network. If the application does not request an address 
	type, the IP stack must not request an address type and leave it to 
	the network's default behavior to choose the type of the allocated IP 
	prefix. If an IP prefix was already allocated to the host, the IP 
	stack uses it and may not request a new one from the network.</t>
	    </section>

    <section anchor="network" title="Network Infrastructure">

	<t> The network infrastructure may or may not support the On-Demand 
	Mobility feature. How the IP stack on the host and the network 
	infrastructure behave in case of a compatibility issue is outside the 
	scope of this API specification. </t>

    </section>


  </section>


 
	<section anchor="summary" title="Summary of New Definitions">
	<t>The following list summarizes the new constants definitions discussed 
	in this memo: </t>
	<figure>
	  <artwork>

 &lt;netdb.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP
 &lt;netdb.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP
 &lt;netdb.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP
 &lt;netdb.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET
 &lt;netdb.h&gt;		EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED
 &lt;netdb.h&gt;		EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED
 
 &lt;netinet/in.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_FIXED_IP
 &lt;netinet/in.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_SESSION_LASTING_IP
 &lt;netinet/in.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_NON_PERSISTENT_IP
 &lt;netinet/in.h&gt;		IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET
 &lt;netinet/in.h&gt;		EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED
 &lt;netinet/in.h&gt;		EAI_REQUIREDIPFAILED
 
</artwork>
	</figure>
	</section>

	<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
	<t> The setting of certain IP address type on a given socket may be 
	restricted to privileged applications. For example, a Fixed IP Address 
	may be provided as a premium service and only certain applications may 
	be allowed to use them.  Setting and enforcement of such privileges are 
	outside the scope of this document.</t>
   
	</section>

    <section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document has no IANA considerations.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="contrinutor" title="Contributors">
	  <t>This document was merged with <xref target="I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source"></xref>. 
	  We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following people to that document as 
	  well:</t>

	  <figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
Sergio Figueiredo
Altran Research, France
Email: sergio.figueiredo@altran.com
	  
Younghan Kim
Soongsil University, Korea
Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr
	  
John Kaippallimalil
Huawei, USA
Email: john.kaippallimalil@huawei.com
]]></artwork>
	</figure>
	  
	  
	</section>
	
	<section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>We would like to thank Alexandru Petrescu, Jouni Korhonen, Sri Gundavelli,
	  and Lorenzo Colitti for their valuable comments and suggestions on this work.</t>
    </section>


    
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6724'?>
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5014'?>
        
      
      
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
        
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6275'?>
        
        
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5944'?>
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7333'?>
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5563'?>
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5213'?>
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6824'?>
        <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3261'?>
		<?rfc include='reference.I-D.sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source'?>


      

      <!---->
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>

