[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04                                                
   INTERNET-DRAFT                                 Carl Williams, Editor
   Internet Engineering Task Force                      DoCoMo USA Labs

   Issued:  November 7, 2001
   Expires: May 7, 2002

             Localized Mobility Management Requirements for IPv6

   Status of This Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

   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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   This document describes requirements for Localized Mobility
   Management (LMM) for Mobile IPv6.  These requirements are intended
   to guide the design of a protocol specification for LMMv6.
   Localized Mobility Management, in general introduces Local Mobility
   Agent functionality for proxying a Regional care of address that
   remains the same while the mobile node moves within a Local Mobility
   Domain, which reduces the binding update signaling latency and the
   signaling load outside the Local Mobility Domain. By its very nature
   LMM also serves as a mechanism to hide the Mobile Node's location
   from observers outside the administration domain (Local Mobility
   Domain).  The identified requirements listed are essential for
   localized mobility management functionality. They are intended to
   be used as a guide for analysis on the observed benefits over the
   identified requirements for architecting and deploying LMM schemes.

Carl Williams, Editor      Expires  May 7, 2002            [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ....................................................  2
2.0 Terminology .....................................................  4
3.0 Requirements ....................................................  4
   3.1 Intra-domain mobility ........................................  5
   3.2 Security .....................................................  6
   3.3 Induced LMM functional requirement ...........................  6
   3.4 Scalability and Performance ..................................  7
   3.5 Mobility Management Support ..................................  9
   3.6 Auto-configuration capabilities for LMM constituents..........  9
   3.7 Interworking with IP routing infrastructure requirement....... 10
   3.8 Sparse routing element population requirement ................ 10
   3.9 Support of fast handoffs in LMMs ............................. 10
   3.10 Simple network design requirement ........................... 11
   3.11 Location privacy and tracking support ....................... 11
   3.12 Reliability ................................................. 11
   3.13 Stability ................................................... 11
   3.14 Quality ..................................................... 11
4.0 Acknowledgments ................................................. 11
5.0 References ...................................................... 12
6.0 Author's Addresses .............................................. 13
7.0 Full Copyright Statement ........................................ 13

1.0 Introduction

   In order to meet the demands of real-time applications and the
   expectations of future wireless users for service level quality
   similar to the one of wireline users, base mobility management in
   IP networks, and in particular Mobile IPv6 is presented with
   a number of technical challenges in terms of performance and
   scalability.  These manifest themselves as increased latencies in
   the control signaling between a Mobile Node and its peer entities,
   namely the Home Agent (HA) and its Corresponding Nodes (CNs).

1.1 Motivation

   It is well-established that real-time applications impose stringent
   requirements in terms of delay and packet loss. [1]  From an IP
   mobility perspective any induced latency would cause these
   applications to experience noticeable degradation in quality as the
   mobile user transits within the same or over different internet
   (ISPs) or context (CSPs) service providers.  This is further
   exacerbated as the rate of transition of the MN (handoff) increases,
   between different such service or content providers manifested in
   form of provisioning (domains).

   When a MN transits from its home domain to a foreign one, it
   is required to provide its Home Agent with its current mobility
   bindings that yields a reachable destination on the visiting domain.
   The MN must send an inter-domain Binding Update signal to notify
   both it's HA and it's communicating CN(s) about its movement that
   has caused attachment to a new Access Router (AR).  For large

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

   round-trip times (RTT) between the MN and it?s HA or CNs (in the
   order of 300-500 ms), the mobility management signaling is bound
   to introduce delays as well as potential packet loss in the
   forwarding of traffic through the HA tunnel (triangular routing)
   or through direct communication between the MN and the CN.

   Furthermore, for a high rate of handoff, the mobility binding
   update of the MN is soon to be rendered invalid; that will
   require new mobility bindings (BUs) to be generated at a much
   higher frequency by the MN and thus result in a signaling
   overhead for its peer communicating entities; this is bounded
   by the RTT between the MN and its peers (HA and CNs). [1]

1.2 Principles of LMM

   To alleviate the above mentioned mobility issues, extensions to
   the Mobile IPv6 protocol are proposed to minimize or at best,
   eliminate frequent mobility management signaling (BUs) to its
   HA and its peer CNs, caused by frequent change of care-of address.
   In contrast to base Mobile IPv6 signaling, LMM ensures that
   the MN refrains from propagating frequently its mobility binding
   all the way back to its home domain or its CNs.   This is achieved
   by introducing Localized Mobility Management Agents (LMM agents)
   into the visited domain with functionality similar to a HA.  Thus,
   control messages are either localized (regional) or global signals.
   Localized signals are those that are bound within a single
   administrative domain and generally targeted towards the LMM agent(s)
   whereas global signals are those that are communicated across
   different administrative domains with their destination the true
   peers of the MN.  With the introduction of regional control messages
   the signaling load of the MNs corresponding HA and CNs is reduced
   as long as the MN stays within the administrative domain. [1]

   As it has been pointed out, the main issues behind LMMs is to
   eliminate frequent Binding Updates to both HA and CN entities.
   This is done introducing a level of indirection by assigning
   two care-of addresses to each MN: one on-link care-of address
   (LCoA), and one regional care-of address (RCoA).  The change of
   the on-link CoA is visible (mobility-local) only within the visited
   domain for the purpose of mobility.  The regional care-of (RCoA)
   address is visible to those peer entities outside the local
   domain (mobility-global) and it changes when the MN moves between
   different administrative domains.

1.3 Consideration points for LMM design

   Having provided some motivation and brief summary of the underlying
   principals of LMM, it is important to enumerate consideration
   points (goals) when designing an LMM framework.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

Consideration points for LMM Design:

        -   reducing the signaling induced by changes in the
            point of attachment due to the movement of a host;
            this is the fundamental reason for introducing
            localized mobility management extensions to core
            Mobile IPv6.

        -   provide a mechanism whereby the mobile nodes
            location is hidden from observers outside the
            administration domain.

        -   reducing the usage of air-interface and network
            resources for mobility;

        -   avoid or minimize the changes of, or impact to the
            Mobile Node, Home Agent or the Correspondent Node;

        -   avoid creating single points of failure;

        -   simplify the network design and provisioning
            for enabling LMM capability in a network;

        -   allow progressive LMM deployment capabilities.

   Identifying a solid set of requirements that will render the
   protocol internals, for some LMM scheme, robust enough to
   cater for the aforementioned considerations becomes essential
   in designing a widely accepted solution.  The remainder of this
   document present a set of requirements that encompass essential
   considerations for the design of an LMM scheme.  It is with this
   foundation that we can seek to ensure that the resulting LMM
   solution will best preserve the fundamental philosophies and
   architectural principles of the Internet in practice today.

2.0 Terminology

   See [2] for additional terminology.

   Administrative Domain A collection of networks under the same
                         administrative control and grouped together
                         for administrative purposes. [2]

   Local Mobility        The movement of an IP device without requiring
                         a change to its routable IP address seen by
                         the CN or HA. Although its point of attachment
                         may change during the move, the IP addresses used
                         to reach the device (both its home and globally
                         visible routable IP address) do not change.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

   Local Mobility Agent  A Mobile Node uses Local Mobility Agent as
   (LMA)                 a local Home Agent while roaming within a Local
                         Mobility Domain.  The LMA proxy Regional CoA,
                         receives all packets on behalf of the Mobile
                         Node and will encapsulate and forward them
                         directly to its current address.

   Local Mobility Domain A Local Mobility Domain contains one or more
                         IP subnets, networks, or Administrative
                         Domains.  Within the Local Mobility Domain,
                         the globally visible routable IP address assigned
                         to a Mobile Host or Mobile Router serving a Mobile
                         Network does not change.

   Localized Mobility    A method of moving an IP device without requiring
   Management (LMM)      a change to its routable IP address seen by the
                         true peers entities, namely the MN's HA and it?s CNs,
                         in order to restrict the signaling area, thus
                         possibly reducing the amount of signaling.

   Strong Authentication Techniques that permit entities to provide
                         evidence that they know a particular secret
                         without revealing the secret.  [3]

3.0 LMM Requirements

   This section describes the requirements of a LMM solution for
   Mobile IPv6.  Only Mobile IPv6 based requirements are described here.

3.1 Intra-domain mobility

   LMM is introduced to minimize the signaling traffic to the Home Agent
   and/or Correspondent Node(s) for intra-domain mobility (within an
   Administrative Domain).  This is the fundamental reason for
   introducing localized mobility management extensions to core Mobile

   In the LMM infrastructure a Correspondent Node or Home Agent outside
   the administration domain MUST always be able to address the mobile
   host by the same IP address, so that from the point of view of hosts
   outside the administration domain, the IP address of the mobile host
   remains fixed regardless of any changes in the Mobile Node's subnet.

   It is not the intent or goal for LMM to enter the intra-subnet
   (intra AR) mobility problem space.   See [4] for more information
   on this specific problem space.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 5]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

3.2 Security

3.2.1 LMM protocol MUST provide for "security provisioning" within the
      respective administration domain.

   The security of exchanging LMM specific information and signaling MUST
   be ensured.  Security provisioning includes protecting the integrity,
   confidentiality, and authenticity of the transfer of LMM specific
   information within the administration domain.  If applicable, replay
   protection MUST exist mutually between the LMM agents.

3.2.2 LMM protocol MUST provide for the security provisioning to be

   In certain environments the security within the administration domain
   may not be necessary, or it may be preferred to minimize the LMM protocol
   overhead. This feature would be used at the network operator's own risk.

3.2.3 LMM protocol MUST NOT interfere with the security provisioning that
      exists between the Home Agent and the Mobile Node.

3.2.4 LMM protocol MUST NOT interfere with the security provisioning that
      exists between the Correspondent Node and the Mobile Node.

3.2.5 LMM protocol MUST NOT introduce new security holes or the possibility
      for DOS-style attacks.

3.2.6 Any LMM scheme MUST make use of a strong authentication mechanism
      to avoid a malicious MN from diverting traffic destined to a
      legitimate MN.  LMM SHOULD also ensure that the network be able
      to maintain topological confidentiality from visiting mobile
      nodes.  That is to say that the LMM scheme in use SHOULD NOT
      reveal the visited network's topology to the Mobile Node.

3.3 Induced LMM functional requirements

3.3.1 Any Localized Mobility Management protocol MUST NOT inject
      any additional functionality over base IPv6 Mobility [6] at the
      Home Agent or any of its peer CNs.  It is essential to minimize
      the involvement of the Mobile Node in routing beyond what is in
      the basic MIPv6 protocol. Preferences, load balancing, and other
      complex schemes requiring heavy mobile node involvement
      in the mobility management task SHOULD BE avoided; this is
      so since, experience with IP networks has shown that routing
      decisions are best left to routers for the purpose of low
      latency and fast convergence.

3.3.2 Any Localized Mobility Management protocol MUST assure that
      that LMM routing state scales linearly with the number of
      Mobile Nodes registered, and that the increase in routing
      state is confined to those ARs/ANRs involved in implementing
      the LMM protocol at hand.  This would involve MIP-specific

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 6]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

      routing state as binding caches in addition to standard
      routing table host routes. While host routes cannot be
      eliminated by any mobility management protocol including
      base IP mobility, any LMM protocol MUST keep the number of
      host routes to a minimum.

3.3.3 The LMM framework MUST NOT add any modifications or extensions
      to the Correspondent Node(s) and Home Agent.  Any LMM solution
      MUST minimize any modifications or impact on the Mobile Node.

3.3.4 Non-LMM-aware routers, hosts, Home Agents, and Mobile Nodes
      MUST be able to interoperate with LMM agents.

3.3.5 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the number of messages between
      the mobile host and the respective Correspondent Node(s) and Home
      Agent.  Indeed, the LMM framework MUST minimize the global
      signaling between the MN and its true peer entities.  The amount
      of regional signaling MUST NOT surpass the amount of global
      signaling that would have otherwise occurred if LMM were not

3.4 Scalability and Performance

3.4.1  Scalability guarantees to support millions of nodes for
       an administrative domain

   The LMM framework MUST scale linearly with the increase in
   the number of MNs.  It is important for an LMM protocol to
   scale over a constantly expanding infrastructure that is
   expected to support millions of MNs.  It is important to
   avoid high concentration of Mobile Nodes under a single
   LMM-aware routing entity since this would no doubt create
   extraneous load for the individual LMM-aware router entity
   (which could potentially increase significantly the probability
   of failure).  The LMM framework MUST support distribution
   of the LMM functionality in the visited domain in order not to
   concentrate all operations into one point and also to help
   achieve linear scalability, whenever the topology of routing
   entities physically makes such distribution possible.  The
   LMM agent functionality to distribute should include
   signaling as well as transport.

3.4.2 The LMM framework MUST NOT create single points of failure in
      the network.  The current access router would be excluded from
      this requirement.

3.4.3 The LMM framework MUST NOT interfere with the Mobile IPv6
      performance of a mobile host communications with a Correspondent

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 7]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

3.4.4 Scalable expansion of the network

   The LMM framework MUST allow for scalable expansion of the network
   and provide for reasonable network configuration with regard
   to peering, inter-administrative domain connectivity,  and other
   inter-administrative domain interoperability characteristics of
   interest to wireless ISPs. The LMM framework MUST NOT introduce
   any additional restrictions in how wireless ISPs configure their
   network, nor how they interconnect with other networks beyond
   those introduced by standard IP routing.   In addition, the
   amount of regional signaling MUST NOT increase as the Local
   Domain expands in size.

3.4.5 Resilience to topological changes

   The LMM protocols MUST be topology-independent.  The LMM protocols
   MUST be able to adapt to topological changes within the domain.  The
   topological changes may include the addition or removal/failure of
   LMM agents or that of changes effected in the routing of the domain
   over which the LMM scheme is applied.

3.4.6 Header or Tunneling overhead

   Any additional header or tunneling overhead caused by LMM MUST
   be reduced on the radio link by compression and transfer of
   compressor state on movement SHOULD be possible so as not to
   introduce any perceived service disruption.

   Candidate LMM designs that require additional header overhead for
   tunnels MUST be reviewed by the ROHC working group to determine
   if the header compressor can be restarted from transferred compressor
   context when handover occurs without requiring any full header packet
   exchange on the new link.

3.4.7 Optimized signaling within the administrative domain

   By its very nature, LMM reintroduces triangle routing into Mobile IPv6
   in that all traffic must go through the LMM agent. There is no way
   to avoid this. The LMM framework SHOULD be designed in such a way
   as to reduce the length of the unwanted triangle leg.

   The LMM framework SHOULD support optimal placement of LMM agents to
   reduce or eliminate additional triangle routing introduced by LMM.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 8]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

3.5 Mobility Management Support

   The following LMM requirements pertain to both inter-domain and
   intra-domain hand-off.

3.5.1 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the amount of latency or amount of
      packet loss that exists with the core Mobile IPv6 specification [6].

3.5.2 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the amount of service disruption
      that already exists with the core Mobile IPv6 specification.

3.5.3 The LMM framework MUST NOT increase the number of messages between
      the mobile host and the respective Correspondent Node(s) and Home
      Agent as is in the core Mobile IPv6 specification.

3.5.4 Movement detection

   Any LMM mechanism MUST contain or make use of a mechanism that provides
   movement detection between separate visited domains.  This mechanism
   MUST provide a globally unique identity of a visited domain.  The
   reason for this requirement is that when performing LMM, there exists
   a need for a domain movement detection for the mechanism to work in
   the first place.  This could be a non-LMM mechanism, such as
   AAA-based.  It is clear that movement detection is needed for basic
   features to work and in order for that to happen there must exist
   some kind of domain identity to be recognizable. A protocol should
   have some minimal common denominator for essential functions like
   movement detection in case there is no other fallback available.
   If that is AAA, we should recognize it becomes mandatory for this
   default to be around.  This requirement also will weigh how
   self-contained the LMM protocol is.

3.6 Auto-configuration capabilities for LMM constituents

   It is desirable that in order to allow for simple incremental
   deployment of an LMM scheme, the local mobility agents MUST
   require minimal (if any) manual configuration.  This plug-and-play
   feature could make use of IPv6 auto-configuration mechanisms, even
   though most likely other automatic configurations will be needed
   (such as, for example, learning about adjacent LMM agents).
   Auto-configuration also facilitates the network to dynamically
   adapt to general topological changes (whether planned or due to
   link or node failures).

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 9]

INTERNET Draft  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

3.7 LMM inter-working with IP routing infrastructure requirement

   The LMM framework MUST NOT disrupt core IP routing anywhere
   in the network.  LMM and IP routing MUST work hand-in-hand.

3.8 Sparse routing element population requirement

   Any LMM protocol MUST be designed to be geared towards
   incremental deployment capabilities; the latter implies
   that the LMM scheme itself imposes minimum requirements
   on the carriers network.  Incremental deployment capabilities
   for an LMM protocol signifies that an initial set of sparse

   LMM agents can populate the administration domain of a network
   provider and operate sufficiently.  In addition, any LMM
   scheme MUST be compatible with any additional deployment
   of LMM agents in future infrastructural expansions; that is to
   say, allow progressive LMM deployment capabilities.

   It is for this reason that the LMM framework MUST NOT require
   that all routing elements be assumed to be LMM-aware in the
   signaling interactions of an LMM protocol. The LMM framework
   MUST BE supported, at the very minimum, by a sparse (proper
   subset) LMM agent population that is co-located within the
   routing topology of a single administration domain.

   To avoid concentration of MN's around individual LMM-agents
   during their mobility pattern within a domain, an LMM scheme
   MUST be able to distribute the MN population over a number
   of available LMM agents that populate the administrative

3.9 Support of Fast handoffs in LMMs

   Mobility extensions have been proposed to quickly enable IP
   connectivity of the MN at a new point of attachment; these
   extensions are known as Fast Handoffs for Mobile IP(v6). [7]

   These enhancements are intended to minimize handoff latency
   and reduce packet loss.  LMM and FMIP protocols MUST BE able
   to be deployed independently of each other.  However, when
   the two classes of protocols co-exist, LMM and FMIP MUST
   maintain compatibility in their signaling interactions for
   fulfilling complementary roles with respect to each other.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 10]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

3.10 Simple Network design requirement

   LMM SHOULD simplify the network design and provisioning for enabling LMM
   capability in a network and allow progressive LMM deployment capabilities.

3.11 Location privacy and tracking support

   The LMM framework MUST allow for location privacy for the MN.  The
   LMM framework MAY provide efficient and scalable location tracking
   on behalf of a MN.

3.12 Reliability

3.12.1 LMM framework MUST include recovery from failure of LMM agents.

3.12.2 LMM framework MUST include mechanisms for inclusion of the
       indication of failure of LMM agents.

3.12.3 Connectivity to the Mobile Node MUST always be maintained in the
       presence of failure of LMM agents (infrastructure).

3.13 Stability

   LMM MUST avoid any routing loops.

3.14 Quality

3.14.1  LMM MUST minimize packet reordering.  Continuous packet reordering
        which makes the receiver's TCP generates duplicate acks causes
        unnecessary packet retransmissions.

3.14.2  LMM MUST minimize packet duplication.  Duplicated packets
        consume scarce wireless link capacity.

4.0 Acknowledgments

  Thank you to all who participated in the LMM requirement discussion
  on the Mobile IP working group alias.  First, I want to recognize
  Theo Pagtzis's (University College London) work on LMM requirement
  analysis. Theo has contributed significantly to the LMM discussion
  on the mailing list and at IETF working group meetings and has
  provided text for various requirements and the text for the
  introduction detailing motivation and basic LMM principals.  Theo's
  work on requirement analysis will be published soon (see [1] below).
  Special thanks also to John Loughney (Nokia), Alper Yegin
  (DoCoMo USA Labs) and Madjid Nakhjiri (Motorola) for providing input
  to the draft in its preliminary stage.  As editor of the draft a small

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 11]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

  team was put together to work with me on LMM requirement analysis:
  Hesham Soliman (Ericsson), Erik Nordmark (Sun), Theo Pagtzis (UCL),
  James Kempf (DoCoMo USA Labs), and Jari Malinen (Nokia).

  Many other working group members have participated in the requirement
  analysis of LMM for IPv6.  This included writing requirements listed
  in this document as well as providing insight into requirement
  analysis.  This made my job as editor of this document quite easy.
  Members who contributed are:
  Charlie Perkins (Nokia), Theo Pagtzis (University College London),
  Muhammad Jaseemuddin (Nortel), Tom Weckstr (Helsinki University),
  Jim Bound (Compaq),  Erik Nordmark (Sun), James Kempf (DoCoMo USA Labs),
  Gopal Dommety (Cisco), Glenn Morrow (Nortel), Arthur Ross (IEEE),
  Samita Chakrabarti (Sun), Hesham Soliman (Ericsson),

  Karim El-Malki (Ericsson), Phil Neumiller (Telocity), Behcet Sarikaya
  (Alcatel), Karann Chew (University of Surrey), Michael Thomas (Cisco),
  Pat Calhoun (Black Storm Networking), Bill Gage (Nortel Networks),
  Vinod Choyi (Alcatel), John Loughney (Nokia), Wolfgang Schoenfeld
  (GMD IPSI), and David Martin (Nextel).  Recent comments received
  by Atsushi Takeshita (DoCoMo USA Labs), Daichi Funato (DoCoMo USA
  Labs), Youngjune Gwon (DoCoMo USA Labs),  Ichiro Okajima (NTT DoCoMo),
  Jari Malinen (Nokia), and Koshimi Takashi (NTT DoCoMo).

  In addition special thanks to the Mobile IP working group chairs
  for their input as well as capturing and organizing the initial set
  of requirements from the discussions, Phil Roberts (Magisto) and
  Basavaraj Patil (Nokia).

5.0 References

   [1]            Theo Pagtzis, "Requirements for Localised Mobility
                  Management in IPv6 Networks"; Paper in Submission;
                  Work In Progress, November 2001.

   [2]            Manner, J. et al; "Mobility Related Terminology";
                  draft-manner-seamoby-terms-02.txt; Work In
                  Progress; July 2001.

   [3]            J.J. Tardo and K. Alagappan, ?SPX: Global Authentication
                  Using Public Key Certificates.? In Proc IEEE Symp.
                  Research in Security and Privacy.  IEEE CS Press, 1991.

   [4]            Roberts, P., "Local Subnet Mobility Problem Statement";
                  Work In Progress; May 2001.

   [5]            Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support". IETF,
                  Request for Comments (RFC) 2002, October 1996.

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 12]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

   [6]            David B. Johnson, Charles Perkins, "Mobility Support
                  in IPv6"; draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-14.txt; July 2001.

   [7]            Tsirtsis, G. (Editor), "Fast Handovers for Mobile
                  IPv6"; draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-00.txt; a work
                  in progress; February 2001.

   [8]            Loughney, J. (Editor), "SeaMoby Micro Mobility Problem
                  Statement"; draft-ietf-seamoby-mm-problem-01.txt; a work
                  in progress; February 2001.

6.0 Authors' Addresses

   The working group can be contacted via the current chairs:

   Basavaraj Patil               Phil Roberts
   Nokia Corporation             Megisto Systems
   6000 Connection Drive         20251 Century Blvd
   Irving, TX 75039              Suite 120
   USA                           Germantown Maryland, 20874-1191

   Phone:  +1 972-894-6709       EMail:  proberts@megisto.com
   EMail:  Raj.Patil@nokia.com
   Fax :  +1 972-894-5349

Questions about this memo can also be directed to:

        Carl Williams
        DoCoMo Communications Laboratories USA, Inc.
        181 Metro Drive, Suite 300
        San Jose, CA 95110
        phone: +1 408 451 4741
        fax:   +1 408 573 1090
        email: carlw@docomolabs-usa.com

7.0 Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 13]

INTERNET DRAFT  Localized Mobility Management Requirements   November 2001

   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

Carl Williams, Editor   Expires     May 7, 2002            [Page 14]