BEHAVE Working Group B. Zhou
Internet-Draft H. Deng
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: April 29, 2010 October 26, 2009
Requirements for Referral in Mobile Network, input to GROBJ BoF
draft-bo-behave-ref-req-01
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009
Abstract
This document lays out the requirements that need to be met by the
potential referral modifications for the mobile network.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements of referral design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. R1 Standard referral format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. R2 Simplify ALG during NAT traversal . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. R3 Network inspection consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009
1. Introduction
Mobile operators are using referrals in their network to make
entities reachable straightforward. However, this simple approach is
failed by deployment of firewall and translator (like NAT) in the
network, in which causes the translation function happened during the
communication. This document is intended to discuss about the
requirements that need to be met by the potential referral
modifications in the mobile network.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
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 [RFC2119].
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009
2. Requirements of referral design
2.1. R1 Standard referral format
The referral formats need to be standardized. Applications can
understand the meaning of referral informed, such as IP address,
possibly protocol and port numbers. However, there is an open
question whether this standard referral design should be use for new
applications only, or including all existing applications.
2.2. R2 Simplify ALG during NAT traversal
There are middle boxes, like firewalls and translators, exist in the
mobile network, which cause applications need to do translations,
especially ALG. The cost of translation functions included ALG is
huge for the mobile operator in terms of implementation, performance.
Standard referral could simplify ALG implementation during NAT
traversal in the mobile network.
2.3. R3 Network inspection consideration
Operators sometimes need to inspect information or details during
communication for administration motivations. If referral format is
standardized, it is easy for operator to capture and investigate the
communication information they required.
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009
3. Security Considerations
This document does not create any new security considerations.
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009
4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009
5. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009
Authors' Addresses
Bo Zhou
China Mobile
Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xuanwu District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: zhouboyj@gmail.com
Hui Deng
China Mobile
Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xuanwu District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: denghui02@gmail.com
Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 8]