LIN6: Mobility Support in IPv6 based on End-to-End Communication Model
draft-teraoka-mobility-lin6-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. Fumio Teraoka | ||
| Last updated | 2000-12-19 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document describes the protocol specification of LIN6. LIN6 supports both macro and micro mobility in IPv6[RFC2460]. LIN6 has several advantages in comparison with Mobile IPv6[MIPv6] as follows: o LIN6 has no header overhead because it does not use any extension headers of IPv6 while Mobile IPv6 uses the Destination Options Header for the Home Address Option and the Routing Header. o LIN6 is more fault tolerant than Mobile IPv6. In Mobile IPv6, the Home Agent cannot be replicated to the subnet other than the home link of the mobile node. LIN6 introduces the Mapping Agent which can be replicated anywhere in the Internet. o LIN6 keeps end-to-end communication model, that is, LIN6 does not use any packet intercepter/forwarder such as the Home Agent of Mobile IPv6. There is no tunneling in LIN6.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)