💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc8278.gmi captured on 2022-06-12 at 05:57:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), multihoming, Multiple WAN accesses
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Seite
Request for Comments: 8278 Orange
Category: Standards Track A. Yegin
ISSN: 2070-1721 Actility
S. Gundavelli
Cisco
January 2018
Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) Multipath Options
Abstract
This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
(PMIPv6) protocol that allow a mobile access gateway (MAG) to
register more than one proxy care-of address (pCoA) with the local
mobility anchor (LMA) and to simultaneously establish multiple IP
tunnels with the LMA. This capability allows the MAG to utilize all
the available access networks to route the mobile node's IP traffic.
This document defines the following two new mobility header options:
the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG Identifier option.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8278.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Traffic Distribution Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. MAG Multipath Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 11
4.4. Signaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
1. Introduction
Multihoming support on IP hosts can greatly improve the user
experience. With the simultaneous use of multiple access networks,
multihoming brings better network connectivity, reliability, and
improved quality of communication. The following are some of the
goals and benefits of multihoming support:
o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery
o Load balancing
o Load sharing
o Preference settings
According to [RFC4908], users of small-scale networks can benefit
from a mobile and fixed multihomed architecture using mobile IP
[RFC6275] and Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963].
The motivation for this work is to extend the PMIPv6 protocol with
multihoming extensions [RFC4908] for realizing the following
capabilities:
o Using GRE as mobile tunneling, possibly with its key extension
[RFC5845].
o Using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT
traversal in an IPv4 networking environment.
o Using the prefix delegation mechanism [RFC7148].
o Using the Vendor Specific Mobility Option [RFC5094], for example,
to allow the MAG and LMA to exchange information (e.g., WAN
interface QoS metrics), which allows the appropriate traffic-
steering decisions to be made.
PMIPv6 relies on two mobility entities: the MAG, which acts as the
default gateway for the end node (either a mobile or a fixed node)
attached to the MAG's access links, and the LMA, which acts as the
topological anchor point. IP tunnel is created with any one of the
supported encapsulation mode between the MAG and the LMA. Then, the
MAG and LMA distribute the end node's traffic over these tunnels.
All PMIPv6 operations are performed on behalf of the end node and its
correspondent node. Thus, it makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed
architecture as considered in [RFC4908]. Taking the LTE and WLAN
networking environments as examples, the PMIPv6-based multihomed
architecture is depicted in Figure 1. In this example, IP flows,
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
Flow-1 and Flow-3 are routed over Tunnel-1 and Flow-2 is routed over
Tunnel-2. However, IP traffic belonging to Flow-4 is distributed on
both Tunnel-1 and Tunnel-2 paths.
Flow-1
|
|Flow-2 _----_
| | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 Flow-1
| | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-3
| | | (_ _) \ Flow-4
| | | '----' \
| | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_
| '-| | \ | | _( )_
'---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )--
.---| | | | (_ _)
| .-| | / | | '----'
| | +=====+ / +=====+
| | | _----_ /
| | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 /
| | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2
| | (_ _) Flow-4
| | '----'
|Flow-3
|
Flow0-4
Figure 1: Multihomed MAG Using Proxy Mobile IPv6
The current version of PMIPv6 does not allow a MAG to register more
than one pCoA to the LMA. In other words, only one MAG/LMA link,
i.e., IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at the same time. This document
overcomes this limitation by defining the multiple pCoAs extension
for PMIPv6.
2. Conventions and Terminology
2.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
2.2. Terminology
All mobility-related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844], and [RFC7148].
Additionally, this document uses the following term:
IP-in-IP
IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473] [RFC4213]
3. Overview
3.1. Example Call Flow
Figure 2 is the call flow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6.
The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE
interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality.
The steps of the call flow are as follows:
Steps (1) and (2): The MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks.
Then, the MAG obtains two different pCoAs, respectfully.
Step (3): The MAG sends, over the LTE access, a Proxy Binding Update
(PBU) message with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG
Network Access Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. The request
can be for a physical mobile node attached to the MAG or for a
logical mobile node configured on the mobile access gateway. A
logical mobile node is a logical representation of a mobile node in
the form of a configuration that is always enabled on the MAG. The
mobility session that is created (i.e., create a Binding Cache Entry
(BCE)) on the LMA will be marked with multipath support.
Step (4): The LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)
including the Home Network Prefix (HNP) and other session parameters
allocated for that mobility session.
Step (5): IP tunnel is created between the MAG and the LMA over LTE
access with any one of the supported encapsulation modes.
Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the WLAN
access. The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU.
The LMA updates its binding cache by creating a new mobility session
for this MAG.
Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP
addresses from the mobile network prefix delegated to the MAG by the
LMA.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA |
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | (1) ATTACH | | |
| | | <--------> | | |
| | | (2) ATTACH | |
| | | <---------------------->| |
| | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | ------------------------*-------------->|
| | | |
| | | Accept PBU
| | | (allocate HNP,
| | | create BCE)
| | | (4) PBA (MMB, ...) |
| | | <-----------------------*---------------|
| | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE |
| | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|
| | | |
| | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB, ...) |
| | | -----------*--------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | Accept PBU
| | | (update BCE)
| | | (7) PBA (MMB, ...) |
| | | <----------*--------------------------- |
| | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |
| | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-|
| (9) ATTACH | |
| <---------------> | |
| |(10) ATTACH| |
| |<--------> | |
Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Planes
3.2. Traffic Distribution Schemes
When the MAG has registered a multipath binding with the LMA, there
will be multiple established overlay tunnels between them. The MAG
and the LMA can use any one, or more, of the available tunnel paths
for routing the mobile node's IP traffic. This specification does
not recommend or define any specific traffic distribution scheme.
However, it identifies two well-known approaches that implementations
can potentially use. These approaches are per-flow and per-packet
traffic distribution schemes.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
Per-Flow Traffic Distribution:
o In this approach, the MAG and the LMA associate each of the IP
flows (upstream and downstream) with a specific tunnel path. The
packets in a given IP flow are always routed on the same overlay
tunnel path; they are never split and routed concurrently on more
than one tunnel path. It is possible for a given flow to be moved
from one tunnel path to another, but the flow is never split. The
decision to bind a given IP flow to a specific tunnel path is
based on the traffic distribution policy. This traffic
distribution policy is either statically configured on both the
MAG and the LMA or dynamically negotiated over PMIPv6 signaling.
The Flow Binding extension [RFC6089] and Traffic Selectors for
Flow Bindings [RFC6088] define the mechanism and the semantics for
exchanging the traffic policy between two tunnel peers; the same
mechanism and the mobility options are used here.
Per-Packet Traffic Distribution:
o In this approach, packets belonging to a given IP flow will be
split and routed across more than one tunnel path. The exact
approach for traffic distribution or the distribution weights is
outside the scope of this specification. In a very simplistic
approach, assuming that the established tunnel paths have
symmetric characteristics, the packets can be equally distributed
on all the available tunnel paths. In a different scenario, when
the links have different speeds, the chosen approach can be based
on weighted distribution (e.g., n:m ratio). However, in any of
these chosen approaches, implementations have to be sensitive to
issues related to asymmetric link characteristics and the
resulting issues such as reordering, buffering, and the impact on
application performance. Care must be taken to ensure that there
is no negative impact on the application performance due to the
use of this approach.
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. MAG Multipath Binding Option
The MAG Multipath Binding option is a new mobility header option
defined for use with PBU and PBA messages exchanged between the LMA
and the MAG.
This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support.
It indicates that the MAG is requesting that the LMA register the
current CoA associated with the request as one of the many CoAs
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
through which the MAG can be reached. It is also used for carrying
the information related to the access network associated with the
CoA.
The MAG Multipath Binding option does not have any alignment
requirement. Its format is as shown in Figure 3:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding ID |B|O| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option
Type
Type: MAG Multipath Binding (63)
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the Type and Length fields.
Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)
This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the
interface through which the mobile node is connected. The
permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type
registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/>
defined in [RFC5213].
Interface Label (If-Label)
This 8-bit unsigned integer represents the interface label.
The interface label is an identifier configured on the WAN
interface of the MAG. All the WAN interfaces of the MAG that are
used for sending PBU messages are configured with a label. The
labels merely identify the type of WAN interface and are primarily
used in application-routing policies. For example, a Wi-Fi
interface can be configured with a label "9" and an LTE interface
with a label "11". Furthermore, the same label may be configured
on two WAN interfaces of similar characteristics (e.g., two
Ethernet interfaces with the same label).
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
Interface labels are signaled from the MAG to the LMA in the PBU
messages and both the LMA and MAG will be able to mark each of the
dynamically created Binding/Tunnel with the associated label.
These labels are used in generating consistent application-routing
rules on the both the LMA and the MAG. For example, there can be
a policy requiring HTTP packets to be routed over an interface
that has the interface label of "9", and if any of the interfaces
with interface label "9" are not available, the traffic needs to
be routed over the interface with the interface label "11". The
MAG and the LMA will be able to apply this routing rule with the
exchange of interface labels in PBU messages and by associating
the application flows to tunnels with the matching interface
labels.
Binding Identifier (BID)
This 8-bit unsigned integer is used for identifying the binding.
The permitted values are 1 through 254. The values 0 and 255 are
reserved.
The MAG identifies each of the mobile node's bindings with a
unique identifier. The MAG includes the identifier in the PBU
message; when the PBU request is accepted by the LMA, the
resulting binding is associated with this BID in the mobile node's
Binding Cache entry.
Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
If set to a value of (1), this flag notifies the LMA to consider
this as a request to update the binding lifetime of all the mobile
node's bindings upon accepting this specific request. The (B)
flag MUST NOT be set to a value of (1) if the value of the
Registration Overwrite (O) flag is set to a value of (1).
Registration Overwrite (O)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the LMA that upon
accepting this request, it should replace all of the mobile node's
existing bindings with this binding. This flag MUST NOT be set to
a value of (1) if the value of the Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be set to a value of (0)
in De-Registration requests.
Reserved
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set
to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
4.2. MAG Identifier Option
The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for
use with PBU and PBA messages exchanged between the LMA and the MAG.
This mobility header option is used for conveying the MAG's identity.
This option does not have any alignment requirements.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option
Type
Type: MAG Identifier (64)
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the Type and Length fields.
Subtype
One-byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the
Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the
registered type values from the "Mobile Node Identifier Option
Subtypes" registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-
parameters/>.
Reserved
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set
to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Identifier
A variable-length identifier of the type indicated in the Subtype
field.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in
PBA messages.
The LMA SHOULD use this error code when rejecting a PBU message from
a MAG requesting a multipath binding. The following is the potential
reason for rejecting the request:
o The LMA does not support multipath binding.
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding):
180
4.4. Signaling Considerations
o The MAG, when requesting multipath support, MUST include the MAG
Multipath Binding option (Section 4.1) in each of the PBU messages
that it sends through the different WAN interfaces. The inclusion
of this option serves as a hint that the MAG is requesting
multipath support. Furthermore, the MAG Identifier option MUST
also be present in the PBU message.
o If the MAG is aware that the LMA supports the multipath binding
option defined in this specification and if it chooses to use
multiple paths, then it can send the PBU packets for each of the
paths, either sequentially or concurrently. However, if the MAG
is not aware of the LMA capability, then it SHOULD first discover
the LMA capability by sending PBU packets with multipath on only
one path first. This will ensure that the LMA will not be
overwriting the binding of one path with the other path.
o If the LMA supports multipath capability as defined in this
specification and if it enables the same for a mobile node's
session per the MAG's request, then the LMA MUST include the
Multipath Binding option (Section 4.1) without the MAG-NAI option
(Section 4.2) in the corresponding PBA reply.
o If the LMA is a legacy LMA that does not support this
specification, the LMA will skip the MAG Multipath Binding option
(and MAG-NAI option) and process the rest of the message as
specified in the base PMIPv6 specification ([RFC5213]).
Furthermore, the LMA will not include the MAG Multipath Binding
option (or the MAG-NAI option) in the PBA message. The MAG, upon
receiving the PBA message without the MAG Multipath Binding
option, SHOULD disable multipath support for the mobile node.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
o If the mobile node is not authorized for multipath support, then
the LMA will reject the request by sending a PBA message with the
Status field value set to CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING
(Section 4.3). The LMA MUST echo the MAG Multipath Binding option
(without the MAG-NAI option) in the PBA message. The MAG, upon
receiving this message, SHOULD disable multipath support for the
mobile node.
5. IANA Considerations
This specification defines a new mobility option: the MAG Multipath
Binding option. The format of this option is described in
Section 4.1. The type value 63 has been allocated for this mobility
option from the "Mobility Options" registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
This specification defines a new mobility option: the MAG Identifier
option. The format of this option is described in Section 4.2. The
type value 64 has been allocated for this mobility option from the
"Mobility Options" registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
mobility-parameters>.
This document defines a new status value:
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (180) for use in PBA messages, as
described in Section 4.3. This value has been assigned from the
"Status Codes" registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-
parameters>.
6. Security Considerations
This specification allows a MAG to establish multiple PMIPv6 tunnels
with an LMA by registering a care-of address for each of its
connected access networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's
IP traffic to be routed through any of the tunnel paths based on the
negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no impact on the
protocol security. Furthermore, this specification defines two new
mobility header options: the MAG Multipath Binding option and the MAG
Identifier option. These options are carried like any other mobility
header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, it inherits
security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this specification does
not weaken the security of the PMIPv6 Protocol and does not introduce
any new security vulnerabilities.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
[RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6
Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094,
December 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
[RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and
CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile
IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa,
R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed
network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4908, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to acknowledge the
discussions and feedback on this topic from the members of the
Distributed Mobility Management Working Group. The authors would
also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee, Dirk Von-Hugo,
Seil Jeon, Carlos Bernardos, Robert Sparks, Adam Roach, Kathleen
Moriarty, Hilarie Orman, Ben Campbell, Warren Kumari, and Dhananjay
Patki for their review feedback. Special thanks to Mirja Kuehlewind
for a very thorough review and suggesting many text improvements.
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8278 MAG Multipath Binding Options January 2018
Authors' Addresses
Pierrick Seite
Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
Cesson-Sevigne 35512
France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Alper Yegin
Actility
Turkey
Email: alper.yegin@actility.com
Sri Gundavelli
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Seite, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]