Technical Summary
Network mobility arises when a router connecting a network to the
Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the Internet
thereby causing the reachability of the said network to be changed in
relation to the fixed Internet topology. Such kind of network is
referred to as a mobile network. With appropriate mechanisms,
sessions established between nodes in the mobile network and the
global Internet can be maintained after the mobile router changes its
point of attachment. This document outlines the goals expected from
network mobility support and defines the requirements that must be
met by the NEMO Basic Support solution.
Working Group Summary
There has been significant review and discussion
of these documents, and the consensus of the
working group is solidly behind the documents.
Protocol Quality
RFC 3963, NEMO Basic Support protocol was developed
and published as an answer to these requirements.
There are multiple implementations.
This document has been reviewed by Jari Arkko for
the IESG.
Note to RFC Editor
In Section 3.7, s/modidication/modification/
In Section 4, replace R10 with this:
R10: The solution MUST be agnostic to the internal
configuration. This means the solution will behave the
same way if the NEMO is nested, comprises one or several
subnets, comprises MNNs which are LFNs, VMNs, LFNs or a
mixture of them.
Add replace Section 5 with the following contents:
Security consideration of the "NEMO Basic Support"
solutions are addressed in RFC 3963.
Section 3.9 of this document discusses the security
goals for all forms of existing and forthcoming NEMO
solutions.
Please change MUST, MAY, etc in Section 4 to lower case.
Please add a NEW Section 3.12:
3.12 Minimal Impact on Internet Routing
Any NEMO solution(s) needs have minimal negative effect on the
global Internet routing system. The solution must therefore limit both
the amount of information that must be injected into Internet
routing,
as well as the dynamic changes in the information that is injected
into the global routing system.
As one example of why this is necessary, consider the approach of
advertising each mobile network's connectivity into BGP, and for
every movement withdrawing old routes and injecting new routes.
If there were tens of thousands of mobile networks each advertising
and withdrawing routes, for example, at the speed that an airplane can
move from one ground station to another, the potential effect on BGP
could be very unfortunate. In this example the total amount of routing
information advertised into BGP may be acceptable, but the dynamic
instability of the information (ie, the number of changes over time)
would be unacceptable.
And finally, add a NEW requirement to the end of Section 4:
R17: The solution should have a minimal impact on the
global Internet routing system.