[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 rfc4886                                  
NEMO Working Group                                              T. Ernst
Internet-Draft                                    Keio University / WIDE
Expires: April 27, 2006                                 October 24, 2005

            Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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-

   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 Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).


   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

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

   met by the NEMO Basic Support solution.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  NEMO Working Group Objectives and Methodology  . . . . . . . .  4

   3.  NEMO Support Design Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Migration Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Performance Transparency and Seamless Mobility . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Network Mobility Support Transparency  . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Operational Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.5.  Arbitrary Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.6.  Local Mobility and Global Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.7.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.8.  Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.9.  Secure Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.10. Location Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.11. IPv4 and NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   4.  NEMO Basic Support One-Liner Requirements  . . . . . . . . . .  8

   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

   Appendix A.  Change Log From Earlier Versions  . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.1.  Changes between version -04 and -05  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.2.  Changes between version -03 and -04  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.3.  Changes between version -02 and -03  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.4.  Changes Between Version -01 and -02  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     A.5.  Changes Between Version -00 and -01  . . . . . . . . . . . 14

   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

1.  Introduction

   Network mobility support (see [1] for the related terminology) is
   concerned with managing the mobility of an entire network, viewed as
   a single unit, which changes its point of attachment to the Internet
   and thus its reachability in the Internet topology.  Such a network
   is referred to as a mobile network and includes one or more mobile
   routers (MRs) which connect it to the global Internet.  Nodes behind
   the MR(s) (MNNs) are both fixed (LFNs) and mobile (VMNs or LMNs).  In
   most cases, the internal structure of the mobile network will be
   relatively stable (no dynamic change of the topology), but this is
   not always true.

   Cases of mobile networks include, for instance:

   o  Networks attached to people (Personal Area Networks or PANs): a
      cell-phone with one cellular interface and one Bluetooth interface
      together with a Bluetooth-enabled PDA constitute a very simple
      instance of a mobile network.  The cell-phone is the mobile router
      while the PDA is used for web browsing or runs a personal web

   o  Networks of sensors and computers deployed in vehicles: vehicles
      are increasingly embedded with a number of processing units for
      safety and ease of driving reasons, as advocated by ITS
      (Intelligent Transportation Systems) applications ([4], [5]).

   o  Access networks deployed in public transportation (buses, trains,
      taxis, aircrafts): they provide Internet access to IP devices
      carried by passengers: laptop, camera, mobile phone: host mobility
      within network mobility or PANs: network mobility within network
      mobility, i.e. nested mobility (see [1] for the definition of
      nested mobility).

   o  Ad-hoc networks connected to the Internet via an MR: for instance
      students in a train that need both to set up an ad-hoc network
      among themselves, and get Internet connectivity through the MR
      connecting the train to the Internet.

   Mobility of networks does not cause MNNs to change their own physical
   point of attachment; however they do change their topological
   location with respect to the global Internet.  If network mobility is
   not explicitly supported by some mechanisms, the mobility of the MR
   results in MNNs losing Internet access and breaking ongoing sessions
   between arbitrary correspondent node (CNs) in the global Internet and
   those MNNs located within the mobile network.  In addition, the
   communication path between MNNs and correspondent nodes becomes sub-
   optimal, and multiple levels of mobility will cause extremely sub-

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

   optimal routing.

   Mobility-related terms used in this document are defined in [2],
   whereas terms specifically pertaining to network mobility are defined
   in [1].  This document is structured as follows: in Section 2 we
   define the rough objectives and methodology of the NEMO working group
   to handle network mobility issues and we emphasize the stepwise
   approach the working group has decided to follow.  A number of
   desirable design goals are listed in Section 3.  Those design goals
   then serve as guidelines to define the requirements listed in
   Section 4 for basic network mobility support [3].

2.  NEMO Working Group Objectives and Methodology

   The mechanisms required for handling network mobility issues were
   lacking within the IETF standards when the NEMO working group was set
   up at the IETF.  At that time, work conducted on mobility support
   (particularly in the Mobile IP working group) was to provide
   continuous Internet connectivity and optimal routing to mobile hosts
   only (host mobility support).  Such mechanisms speficied in Mobile
   IPv6 [6] are unable to support network mobility.  The NEMO working
   group has therefore been set up to deal with issues specific to
   network mobility.

   The primary objective of the NEMO work is to specify a solution which
   allows mobile network nodes (MNNs) to remain connected to the
   Internet and continuously reachable at all times while the mobile
   router seving the mobile network changes its point of attachment.
   The secondary goals of the work is to investigate the effects of
   network mobility on various aspects of internet communication such as
   routing protocol changes, implications of real-time traffic and fast
   handovers, and optimizations.  This should support the primary goal
   of reachability for mobile network nodes.  Security is an important
   consideration too, and efforts should be made to use existing
   security solutions if they are appropriate.  Although a well-designed
   solution may include security inherent in other protocols, mobile
   networks also introduce new challenges.

   To complete these tasks, the NEMO working group has decided to take a
   stepwise approach.  The steps in this approach include standardizing
   a basic solution to preserve session continuity (NEMO Basic Support)
   (see [3]), and studying the possible approaches and issues with
   providing more optimal routing with potentially nested mobile
   networks (NEMO Extended Support) (see [7]).  However, the working
   group is not chartered to actually standardize a solution for
   extgended support at this point in time.  If deemed necessary, the
   working group will be rechartered based on the conclusions of the

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005


   For NEMO Basic Support, the working group will assume that none of
   the nodes behind the MR will be aware of the network's mobility;
   thus, the network's movement needs to be completely transparent to
   the nodes inside the mobile network.  This assumption accommodates
   nodes inside the network that are not generally aware of mobility.

   The efforts of the Mobile IP working group have resulted in the
   Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 protocols, which have already solved the
   issue of host mobility support.  Since challenges to enabling mobile
   networks are vastly reduced by this work, basic network mobility
   support will adopt the methods for host mobility support used in
   Mobile IP, and extend them in the simplest way possible to achieve
   its goals.  The basic support solution, now defined in [3] following
   the requirements stated in Section 4 of the present document, is for
   each MR to have a Home Agent, and use bi-directional tunneling
   between the MR and HA to preserve session continuity while the MR
   moves.  The MR will acquire a care-of address at its attachment point
   much like what is done for mobile nodes (MN), using Mobile IP.  This
   approach allows nested mobile networks, since each MR will appear to
   its attachment point as a single node.

3.  NEMO Support Design Goals

   This section details the fundamental design goals the solutions will
   intend to achieve.  Those design goals serve to define the issues and
   to impose a list of requirements for forthcoming solutions.  Actual
   requirements for NEMO Basic Support are in Section 4; NEMO Extended
   Support is not yet considered at the time of this writing.

3.1.  Migration Transparency

   Permanent connectivity to the Internet has to be provided to all
   MNNs, since continuous sessions are expected to be maintained as the
   mobile router changes its point of attachment.  For maintaining those
   sessions, MNNs are expected to be reachable via their permanent IP

3.2.  Performance Transparency and Seamless Mobility

   NEMO support is expected to be provided with limited signaling
   overhead and to minimize the impact of handovers on applications, in
   terms of packet loss or delay.  However, although variable delays of
   transmission and losses between MNNs and their respective CNs could
   be perceived as the network is displaced, it would not be considered
   a lack of performance transparency.

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

3.3.  Network Mobility Support Transparency

   MNNs behind the MR(s) do not change their own physical point of
   attachment as a result of the mobile network's displacement in the
   Internet topology.  Consequently, NEMO support is expected to be
   performed only be the MR(s).  Specific support functions on any other
   node than the MR(s) would better be avoided.

3.4.  Operational Transparency

   NEMO support is to be implemented at the level of IP layer.  It is
   expected to be transparent to upper layers so that any upper layer
   protocol can run unchanged on top of an IP layer extended with NEMO

3.5.  Arbitrary Configurations

   The formation of a mobile network can occur in various levels of
   complexity.  In the simplest case, a mobile network contains just a
   mobile router and a host.  In the most complicated case, a mobile
   network is multihomed and is itself a multi-level aggregation of
   mobile networks with collectively thousands of mobile routers and
   hosts.  While the list of potential configurations of mobile networks
   cannot be limited, at least the following ones are desirable:

   o  Mobile networks of any size, ranging from a sole subnet with a few
      IP devices to a collection of subnets with a large number of IP

   o  Nodes that change their point of attachment within the mobile

   o  Foreign mobile nodes that attach to the mobile network.

   o  Multihomed mobile network: either when a single MR has multiple
      attachments to the internet, or when the mobile network is
      attached to the Internet by means of multiple MRs (see definition
      in [1] and the analysis in [8]).

   o  Nested mobile networks (mobile networks attaching to other mobile
      networks (see definition in [1]).  Although the complexity
      requirements of those nested networks is not clear, it is
      desirable to support arbitrary levels of recursive networks.  The
      solution should only impose restrictions on nesting (e.g. path
      MTU) when this is impractical and protocol concerns preclude such

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

   o  Distinct mobility frequencies (see mobility factor in [2]).

   o  Distinct access media.

   In order to keep complexity minimal, transit networks are excluded
   from this list.  A transit network is one in which data would be
   forwarded between two endpoints outside of the network, so that the
   network itself simply serves as a transitional conduit for packet
   forwarding.  A stub network (leaf network), on the other hand, does
   not serve as a data forwarding path.  Data on a stub network is
   either sent by or addressed to a node located within that network.

3.6.  Local Mobility and Global Mobility

   Mobile networks and mobile nodes owned by different administrative
   entities are expected to be displaced within a domain boundary or
   between domain boundaries.  Multihoming, vertical and horizontal
   handoffs, and access control mechanisms are desirable to achieve this
   goal.  Such mobility is not expected to be limited for any
   consideration other than administrative and security policies.

3.7.  Scalability

   NEMO support signaling and processing is expected to scale to a
   potentially large number of mobile networks irrespective of their
   configuration, mobility frequency, size and number of CNs.

3.8.  Backward Compatibility

   NEMO support will have to co-exist with established IPv6 standards
   and not interfer with them.  Standards defined in other IETF working
   groups have to be reused as much as possible and extended only if
   deemed necessary.  For instance, the following mechanisms defined by
   other working groups are expected to function without modidication:

   o  Address allocation and configuration mechanisms.

   o  Host mobility support: mobile nodes and correspondent nodes,
      either located within or outside the mobile network, are expected
      to continue operating protocols defined by the Mobile IP working
      group.  This include mechanisms for host mobility support (Mobile
      IPv6) and seamless mobility (FMIPv6).

   o  Multicast support intended for MNNs is expected to be maintained
      while the mobile router changes its point of attachment.

   o  Access control protocols and mechanisms used by visiting mobile
      hosts and routers to be authenticated and authorized, gaining

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

      access to the Internet via the mobile network infrastructure

   o  Security protocols and mechanisms.

   o  Mechanisms performed by routers deployed in both the visited
      networks and in mobile networks (routing protocols, Neighbor
      Discovery, ICMP, Router Renumbering).

3.9.  Secure Signaling

   NEMO support will have to comply with the usual IETF security
   policies and recommendations and is expected to have its specific
   security issues fully addressed.  In practice, all NEMO support
   control messages transmitted in the network will have to be protected
   with an acceptable level of security to prevent intruders to usurp
   identities and forge data.  Specifically, the following issues have
   to be considered:

   o  Authentication of the sender to prevent identity usurpation.

   o  Authorization, to make sure the sender is granted permission to
      perform the operation as indicated in the control message.

   o  Confidentiality of the data contained in the control message.

3.10.  Location Privacy

   Location privacy means to hide the actual location of MNNS to third
   parties other than the HA are desired.  It is not clear to which
   extend this has to be enforced, since it is always possible to
   determine the topological location by analysing IPv6 headers.  It
   would thus require some kind of encryption of the IPv6 header to
   prevent third parties from monitoring IPv6 addresses between the MR
   and the HA.  On the other hand, it is at the very least desirable to
   provide a means for MNNs to hide their real topological location to
   their CNs.

3.11.  IPv4 and NAT Traversal

   IPv4 clouds and NAT are likely to co-exist with IPv6 for a long time,
   so it is desirable to ensure mechanisms developed for NEMO will be
   able to traverse such clouds.

4.  NEMO Basic Support One-Liner Requirements

   The NEMO WG is to specify a unified and unique "Network Mobility

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

   Basic Support" solution, hereafter referred to as "the solution".
   This solution is to allow all nodes in the mobile network to be
   reachable via permanent IP addresses, as well as maintain ongoing
   sessions as the MR changes its point of attachment to the Internet
   topology.  This is to be done by maintaining a bi-directional tunnel
   between an MR and its Home Agent.

   The NEMO Working Group, after some investigation of alternatives, has
   decided to reuse the existing Mobile IPv6 [6] mechanisms for tunnel
   management, or extend it if deemed necessary.

   The list of requirements below has been imposed on the NEMO Basic
   Support solution.  The requirements have mostly been met by the
   resulting specification which can now be found in [3].

      R01: The solution MUST be implemented at the IP layer level.

      R02: The solution MUST set up a bi-directional tunnel between a
      Mobile Router and its Home Agent (MRHA tunnel)

      R03: All traffic exchanged between an MNN and a CN in the global
      Internet MUST transit through the bi-directional MRHA tunnel.

      R04: MNNs MUST be reachable at a permanent IP address and name.

      R05: The solution MUST maintain continuous sessions (both unicast
      and multicast) between MNNs and arbitrary CNs after IP handover of
      (one of) the MR.

      R06: The solution MUST not require modifications to any node other
      than MRs and HAs.

      R07: The solution MUST support fixed nodes, mobile hosts and
      mobile routers in the mobile network.

      R08: The solution MUST allow MIPv6-enabled MNNs to use a mobile
      network link as either a home link or a foreign link.

      R09: The solution MUST ensure backward compatibility with other
      standards defined by the IETF.  In particular, this includes:

         R09:1: The solution MUST not prevent the proper operation of
         Mobile IPv6 (i.e. the solution MUST allow MIPv6-enabled MNNs to
         operate either the CN, HA, or MN operations defined in [6])

      R10: The solution MUST treat all the potential configurations the
      same way (whatever the number of subnets, MNNs, nested levels of
      MRs, egress interfaces)

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

      R11: The solution MUST support at least 2 levels of nested mobile
      networks, while, in principle, arbitrary levels of recursive
      mobile networks SHOULD be supported.

      R12: The solution MUST function for multihomed MRs and multihomed
      mobile networks as defined in [1].

      R13: NEMO Support signaling over the bi-directional MUST be

      R14: Signaling messages between the HA and the MR MUST be secured:

         R14.1: The receiver MUST be able to authenticate the sender.

         R14.2: The function performed by the sender MUST be authorized
         for the content carried.

         R14.3: Anti-replay MUST be provided.

         R14.4: The signaling messages MAY be encrypted.

      R15: The solution MUST ensure transparent continuation of routing
      and management operations over the bi-directional tunnel (this
      includes e.g. unicast and multicast routing protocols, router
      renumbering, DHCPv6)

      R16: When one egress interface fails, the solution MAY preserve
      sessions established through another egress interface.

5.  Security Considerations

   As this document only provides a discussion about design goals and
   describes neither a protocol nor an implementation or a procedure,
   there are no security considerations associated with it.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions.

7.  Acknowledgments

   The material presented in this document takes most of its text from
   discussions and previous documents submitted to the NEMO working
   group.  This includes initial contributions from Motorola, INRIA,
   Ericsson and Nokia.  We are particularly grateful to Hesham Soliman

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

   (Ericsson) and the IETF ADs at the time (Erik Nordmark and Thomas
   Narten) who greatly helped to set up the NEMO working group.  We are
   also grateful to all the following people whose comments highly
   contributed to the present document: T.J. Kniveton (Nokia), Alexandru
   Petrescu (Motorola), Christophe Janneteau (Motorola), Pascal Thubert
   (Cisco), Hong-Yon Lach (Motorola), Mattias Petterson (Ericsson) and
   all the others people who have expressed their opinions on the NEMO
   mailing lists (formely known as MONET).  Thierry Ernst wishes to
   personally acknowledge his previous employers, INRIA, and Motorola
   for their support and direction in bringing this topic up to the IETF
   -- particularly Claude Castelluccia (INRIA) and Hong-Yon Lach

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology",
        draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-04 (work in progress), October 2005.

   [2]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
        RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [3]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
        "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
        January 2005.

8.2.  Informative References

   [4]   "CALM - Medium and Long Range, High Speed, Air Interfaces
         parameters and protocols for broadcast, point to point, vehicle
         to vehicle, and vehicle to point communication in the ITS
         sector - Networking Protocol - Complementary Element", ISO
         Draft ISO/WD 21210, February 2005.

   [5]   Ernst, T. and K. Uehara, "Connecting Automobiles to the
         Internet", Proceedings 3rd International Workshop on ITS
         Telecommunications (ITST), November 2002.

   [6]   Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
         IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [7]   Ng, C., "Network Mobility Route Optimization Problem
         Statement", draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-01 (work in
         progress), October 2005.

   [8]   Ng, C., Ernst, T., Paik, E., and M. Bagnulo, "Analysis of

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

         Multihoming in Network Mobility Support",
         draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04 (work in progress),
         October 2005.

   [9]   Thubert, P., Wakikawa, R., and V. Devarapalli, "NEMO Home
         Network Models", draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-05 (work
         in progress), June 2005.

   [10]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol Version 6
         (IPv6)", IETF RFC 2460, December 1998.

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

Appendix A.  Change Log From Earlier Versions

   The discussions behind the changes in the lattest versions of this
   documents are reflected in the "issue" web page:

A.1.  Changes between version -04 and -05

   Added a reference to [7]

   Split references into Normative and Informational

   Cosmetics changes

A.2.  Changes between version -03 and -04

   - Issue B1: English brush up

   - Issue B2: Added a reference to [4] and [5] when speaking about

   - Issue B3: The following paragraph from section 1 was partly
   removed; the remaining part was moved to section 2 and rephrased:
   "The mechanisms required for handling such mobility issues are
   currently lacking within the IETF standards.  Traditional work
   conducted on mobility support (particularly in the Mobile IP working
   group) is to provide continuous Internet connectivity and optimal
   routing to mobile hosts only (host mobility support) and are unable
   to support network mobility.  The NEMO working group has therefore
   been set up to deal with issues specific to network mobility.  The
   purpose of this document is thus to detail the methodology that will
   be followed by the NEMO working group, its goals, and to define
   requirements for network mobility support."

   - Issue B4: Effectively removed former requirements about "impact on
   the routing fabric".

A.3.  Changes between version -02 and -03

   - Mostly cosmetic changes

   - Merged section Terminology into Introduction

   - Cross-references with other NEMO WG docs

   - Changed the introducion of section Section 4 and added reference to
   NEMO Basic Support's resulting specification.

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

A.4.  Changes Between Version -01 and -02

   - removed sub-items in R12 (sub-cases are contained into the
   definition of multihoming)

   - minor typos

   - R15: Added "multicast"

   - R14.4: SHOULD softened to MAY according to discussion at IETF56th

   - R17 moved to R09 and contains former R09 as a sub-case.

   - R18: relaxed from "SHOULD" to may based on Vijay Devarapalli
   comment (030718)

A.5.  Changes Between Version -00 and -01

   - title of documents: included the word "goals"

   - entire document: some rewording

   - section 4: changed title of section to "NEMO Design Goals".

   - section 4: removed "MUST" and "MAY"

   - section 4: more text about location privacy

   - section 4: changed "Administration" paragraph to "Local and Global
   Mobility".  Text enhanced.

   - section 5: R02: replace "between MR and MR's HA" with "an MR and
   its HA" R11: specified at least 2 levels R12: replaced "support" with
   "function" and add "multihomed MR" R13.x renumbered to R12.x since
   part of R12 (editing mistake) R13 and R18: new requirements proposed
   by editor and minor changes in the formulation of other Requirements

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

Author's Address

   Thierry Ernst
   Keio University / WIDE
   Jun Murai Lab., Keio University.
   K-square Town Campus, 1488-8 Ogura, Saiwa-Ku
   Kawasaki, Kanagawa  212-0054

   Phone: +81-44-580-1600
   Fax:   +81-44-580-1437
   Email: ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp
   URI:   http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                 NEMO Goals                   October 2005

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Ernst                    Expires April 27, 2006                [Page 16]