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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 rfc4831                        Informational
  Internet Draft                                       J. Kempf, Editor
  Document: draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-05.txt        October, 2006
  Expires: April, 2007
        Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)
  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
     The  list  of  current  Internet-Drafts  can  be  accessed  at
     The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
     Gerardo Giaretta, Kent Leung, Katsutoshi Nishida, Phil Roberts, and
     Marco Liebsch all contributed major effort to this document. Their
     names are not included in the authors' section due to the RFC
     Editor's limit of 5 names.
     In this document, design goals for a network-based localized
     mobility management (NETLMM) protocol are discussed.
  Table of Contents
     1.0  Introduction............................................2
     2.0  NETLMM Functional Architecture..........................3
     3.0  Goals for the NETLMM Protocol...........................3
     4.0  IANA Considerations....................................10
     5.0  Security Considerations................................11
     Kempf, editor               Expires April, 2007       [Page 1]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
     6.0  Acknowledgements.......................................11
     7.0  Author's Addresses.....................................11
     8.0  Normative References...................................12
     9.0  Informative References.................................12
     10.0 IPR Statements.........................................13
     11.0 Disclaimer of Validity.................................13
     12.0 Copyright Notice.......................................13
  1.0   Introduction
     In [1], the basic problems that occur when a global mobility
     protocol is used for managing local mobility are described, and two
     currently used approaches to localized mobility management - the
     host-based approach that is used by most IETF protocols, and the
     proprietary WLAN switch approach used between WLAN switches in
     different subnets - are examined. The conclusion from the problem
     statement document is that none of the approaches has a complete
     solution to the problem. While the WLAN switch approach is most
     convenient for network operators and users because it requires no
     software on the mobile node other than the standard drivers for
     WiFi,  the  proprietary  nature  limits  interoperability  and  the
     restriction to a single last hop link type and wired backhaul link
     type restricts scalability. The IETF host-based protocols require
     host software stack changes that may not be compatible with all
     global mobility protocols, and also require specialized and complex
     security   transactions   with   the   network   that   may   limit
     deployability.  The  conclusion  was  that  a  localized  mobility
     management protocol that was network based and required no software
     on the host for localized mobility management is desirable.
     This document develops a brief functional architecture and detailed
     goals for a network-based localized mobility management protocol
     (NETLMM). Section 2.0 describes the functional architecture of
     NETLMM. In Section 3.0, a list of goals that are desirable in the
     NETLMM  protocol  is  presented.  Section  4.0  concerns  IANA
     considerations.   Section   5.0   briefly   outlines   security
     considerations. More discussion of security can be found in the
     threat analysis document [2].
  1.1 Terminology
     Mobility terminology in this draft follows that in RFC 3753 [10]
     and in [1]. In addition, the following terms are related to the
     functional architecture described in Section 2.0:
          Localized Mobility Management Domain
            An Access Network in the sense defined in [1] in which
            mobility is handled by the NETLMM protocol.
          Mobile Access Gateway
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 2]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
            A Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) is a functional network
            element that terminates a specific edge link and tracks
            mobile node IP level mobility between edge links, through
            NETLMM signaling with the Localized Mobility Anchor. The MAG
            also terminates host routed data traffic from the Localized
            Mobility Anchor for mobile nodes currently located within
            the edge link under the MAG's control, and forwards data
            traffic from mobile nodes on the edge link under its control
            to the Localized Mobility Anchor.
          Local Mobility Anchor
            A Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) is a router that maintains a
            collection  of  host  routes  and  associated  forwarding
            information for mobile nodes within a localized mobility
            management domain under its control. Together with the MAGs
            associated with it, the LMA uses the NETLMM protocol to
            manage  IP  node  mobility  within  the  localized  mobility
            management domain. Routing of mobile node data traffic is
            anchored at the LMA as the mobile node moves around within
            the localized mobility management domain.
  2.0   NETLMM Functional Architecture
     The NETLMM architecture consists of the following components.
     Localized Mobility Anchors (LMAs) within the backbone network
     maintain a collection of routes for individual mobile nodes within
     the localized mobility management domain. The routes point to the
     Mobile Access Gateways (MAGs) managing the links on which the
     mobile nodes currently are located. Packets for a mobile node are
     routed to and from the mobile node through tunnels between the LMA
     and MAG. When a mobile node moves from one link to another, the MAG
     sends a route update to the LMA. While some mobile node involvement
     is necessary and expected for generic mobility functions such as
     movement  detection  and  to  inform  the  MAG  about  mobile  node
     movement, no specific mobile node to network protocol will be
     required for localized mobility management itself. Host stack
     involvement in mobility management is thereby limited to generic
     mobility functions at the IP layer, and no specialized localized
     mobility management software is required.
  3.0   Goals for the NETLMM Protocol
     Section 2 of [1] describes three problems with using a global
     mobility management protocol for localized mobility management. Any
     localized mobility management protocol must naturally address these
     three problems. In addition, the side effects of introducing such a
     solution into the network need to be limited. In this section, we
     address goals for NETLMM including both solving the basic problems
     (Goals 1, 2, 3) and limiting the side effects (Goals 4+).
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 3]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
     Some basic goals of all IETF protocols are not discussed in detail
     here, but any solution is expected to satisfy them. These goals are
     fault tolerance, robustness, interoperability, scalability, and
     minimal specialized network equipment. A good discussion of their
     applicability to IETF protocols can be found in [4].
     Out of scope for the initial goals discussion are QoS and dormant
     mode/paging. While these are important functions for mobile nodes,
     they are not part of the base localized mobility management
     problem.  In  addition,  mobility  between  localized  mobility
     management domains is not covered here. It is assumed that this is
     covered by the global mobility management protocols.
  3.1 Handover Performance Improvement (Goal #1)
     Handover packet loss occurs because there is usually latency
     between when the link handover starts and when the IP subnet
     configuration and global mobility management signaling completes.
     During this time the mobile node is unreachable at its former
     topological location on the old link where correspondents are
     sending packets. Such misrouted packets are dropped. This aspect of
     handover performance optimization has been the subject of much
     work, both in other SDOs and in the IETF, in order to reduce the
     latency in IP handover. Many solutions to this problem have been
     proposed at the link layer and at the IP layer. One aspect of this
     goal for localized mobility management is that the processing delay
     for changing the forwarding after handover must approach as closely
     as possible the sum of the delay associated with link layer
     handover and the delay required for active IP layer movement
     detection, in order to avoid excessive packet loss. Ideally, if
     network-side link layer support is available for handling movement
     detection prior to link handover or as part of the link handover
     process,  the  routing  update  should  complete  within  the  time
     required for link handover. This delay is difficult to quantify,
     but for voice traffic, the entire handover delay including Layer 2
     handover time and IP handover time should be between 40-70 ms to
     avoid any degradation in call quality. Of course, if the link layer
     handover  latency  is  too  high,  sufficient  IP  layer  handover
     performance for good real time service cannot be matched.
     A goal of the NETLMM protocol - in networks where the link layer
     handover latency allows it - is to reduce the amount of latency in
     IP handover, so that the combined IP and link layer handover
     latency is less than 70 ms.
  3.2 Reduction in Handover-related Signaling Volume (Goal #2)
     Considering Mobile IPv6 [9] as the global mobility protocol (other
     mobility protocols require about the same or somewhat less), if a
     mobile  node  using  address  autoconfiguration  is  required  to
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 4]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
     reconfigure on every move between links, the following signaling
     must be performed:
     1) Link layer signaling required for handover and reauthentication.
        For example, in 802.11 [7] this is the Reassociate message
        together with 802.1x [8] reauthentication using EAP.
     2) Active   IP   level   movement   detection,   including   router
        reachability.    The    DNA    protocol    [5]    uses    Router
        Solicitation/Router Advertisement for this purpose. In addition,
        if SEND [3] is used and the mobile node does not have a
        certificate cached for the router, the mobile node must use
        Certification Path Solicitation/Certification Path Advertisement
        to obtain a certification path.
     3) Two Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [14] REPORT messages, one
        for each of the solicited node multicast addresses corresponding
        to the link local address and the global address,
     4) Two Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages for duplicate address
        detection, one for the link local address and one for the global
        address. If the addresses are unique, no response will be
     5) Two NS messages from the router for address resolution of the
        link local and global addresses, and two Neighbor Advertisement
        messages in response from the mobile node,
     6) Binding Update/Binding Acknowledgement between the mobile node
        and home agent to update the care of address binding,
     7) Return routability signaling between the correspondent node and
        mobile node to establish the binding key, consisting of one Home
        Test Init/Home Test and Care of Test Init/Care of Test,
     8) Binding Update/Binding Acknowledgement between the correspondent
        node and mobile node for route optimization.
     Note that Steps 1-2 may be necessary even for intra-link mobility,
     if the last hop link protocol doesn't provide much help for IP
     handover.  Step  3-5  will  be  different  if  stateful  address
     configuration is used, since additional messages are required to
     obtain the address. Steps 6-8 are only necessary when Mobile IPv6
     is used. The result is approximately 18 messages at the IP level,
     where the exact number depends on various specific factors such as
     whether the mobile node has a router certificate cached or not,
     before a mobile node can be ensured that it is established on a
     link and has full IP connectivity. In addition to handover related
     signaling,  if  the  mobile  node  performs  Mobile  IPv6  route
     optimization, it may be required to renew its return routability
     key periodically (on the order of every 7 minutes) even if it is
     not moving, resulting in additional signaling.
     The signaling required has a large impact on the performance of
     handover,  impacting  Goal  #1.  Perhaps  more  importantly,  the
     aggregate impact from many mobile nodes of such signaling on
     expensive shared links (such as wireless where the capacity of the
     link cannot easily be expanded) can result in reduced last hop link
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 5]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
     capacity for data traffic. Additoinally, in links where the end
     user is charged for IP traffic, IP signaling is not without cost.
     To address the issue of signaling impact described above, the goal
     is that handover signaling volume from the mobile node to the
     network should be no more than what is needed for the mobile node
     to perform secure IP level movement detection, in cases where no
     link layer support exists. Furthermore, NETLMM should not introduce
     any additional signaling during handover beyond what is required
     for IP level movement detection. If link layer support exists for
     IP level movement detection, the mobile node may not need to
     perform  any  additional  IP  level  signaling  after  link  layer
  3.3 Location Privacy (Goal #3)
     In any IP network, there is a threat that an attacker can determine
     the physical location of a network node from the node's topological
     location. Depending on how an operator deploys their network, an
     operator may choose to assign subnet coverage in a way that is
     tightly bound to geography at some timescale or it may choose to
     assign it in ways in which the threat of someone finding a node
     physically  based  on  its  IP  address  is  smaller. Allowing
     the L2 attachment and L3 address to be less tightly bound is one
     tool for reducing this threat to location privacy.
     Mobility introduces an additional threat. An attacker can track a
     mobile node's geographical location in real time, if the victim
     mobile node must change its IP address as it moves from one subnet
     to  another  through  the  covered  geographical  area.  If  the
     granularity of the mapping between the IP subnets and geographical
     area is small for the particular link type in use, the attacker can
     potentially assemble enough information to find the victim in real
     In order to reduce the risk from location privacy compromises as a
     result of IP address changes, the goal for NETLMM is to remove the
     need to change IP address as a mobile node moves across links in an
     access  network.  Keeping  the  IP  address  fixed  over  a  large
     geographical region fuzzes out the resolution of the mapping
     between the IP subnets and geographical area, regardless of how
     small the natural deployment granularity may be. This reduces the
     chance that the attacker can deduce the precise geographic location
     of the mobile node.
  3.4 Limit Overhead in the Network (Goal #4)
     Access networks, including both the wired and wireless parts, tend
     to  have  somewhat  stronger  bandwidth  and  router  processing
     constraints than the backbone. In the wired part of the network,
     these constraints are a function of the cost of laying fiber or
     wiring  to  the  wireless  access  points  in  a  widely  dispersed
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 6]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
     geographic area. In the wireless part of the network, these
     constraints are due to the limitation on the number of bits per
     Hertz imposed by the physical layer protocol. Therefore, any
     solutions  for  localized  mobility  management  should  minimize
     overhead within the access network.
  3.5 Simplify Mobile Node Mobility Management Security by Deriving from
      IP Network Access and/or IP Movement Detection Security (Goal #5)
     Localized mobility management protocols that have host involvement
     may require an additional security association between the mobile
     node and the mobility anchor, and establishing this security
     association may require additional signaling between the mobile
     node and the mobility anchor (see [13] for an example). The
     additional  security  association  requires  extra  signaling  and
     therefore extra time to negotiate. Reducing the complexity of
     mobile node to network security for localized mobility management
     can  therefore  reduce  barriers  to  deployment  and  improve
     responsiveness. Naturally, such simplification must not come at the
     expense of maintaining strong security guarantees for both the
     network and mobile node.
     In  NETLMM,  the  network  (specifically  the  MAG)  derives  the
     occurrence of a mobility event requiring a routing update for a
     mobile node from link layer handover signaling or IP layer movement
     detection signaling from the mobile node. This information is used
     to update routing for the mobile node at the LMA. The handover or
     movement detection signaling must provide the network with proper
     authentication  and  authorization  so  that  the  network  can
     definitively  identify  the  mobile  node  and  determine  its
     authorization. The authorization may be at the IP level, for
     example, using something like SEND [3] to secure IP movement
     detection signaling, or it may be at the link level. Proper
     authentication and authorization must be implemeted on link layer
     handover signaling and/or IP level movement detection signaling in
     order for the MAG to securely deduce mobile node movement events.
     Security threats to the NETLMM protocol are discussed in [2].
     The  goal  is  that  security  for  NETLMM  mobile  node  mobility
     management should derive from IP network access and/or IP movement
     detection security, such as SEND or network access authentication,
     and not require any additional security associations or additional
     signaling between the mobile node and the network.
  3.6 Link Technology Agnostic (Goal #6)
     The number of wireless link technologies available is growing, and
     the growth seems unlikely to slow down. Since the standardization
     of a wireless link physical and medium access control layers is a
     time consuming process, reducing the amount of work necessary to
     interface a particular wireless link technology to an IP network is
     necessary. When the last hop link is a wireless link, a localized
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 7]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
     mobility management solution should ideally require minimal work to
     interface with a new wireless link technology.
     In addition, an edge mobility solution should provide support for
     multiple wireless link technologies. It is not required that the
     localized mobility management solution support handover from one
     wireless link technology to another without change in IP address,
     but this possibility should not be precluded.
     The goal is that the localized mobility management protocol should
     not use any wireless link specific information for basic routing
     management, though it may be used for other purposes, such as
     securely identifying a mobile node.
  3.7 Support for Unmodified Mobile Nodes (Goal #7)
     In the wireless LAN switching market, no modification of the
     software on the mobile node is required to achieve localized
     mobility management. Being able to accommodate unmodified mobile
     nodes enables a service provider to offer service to as many
     customers as possible, the only constraint being that the customer
     is authorized for network access.
     Another advantage of minimizing mobile node software for localized
     mobility management is that multiple global mobility management
     protocols can be supported. There are a variety of global mobility
     management  protocols  that  might  also  need  support,  including
     proprietary or link technology-specific protocols needing support
     for backward compatibility reasons. Within the Internet, both HIP
     [11] and Mobike [6] are likely to need support in addition to
     Mobile  IPv6  [9],  and  Mobile  IPv4  [12]  support  may  also  be
     Note that this goal does NOT mean that the mobile node has no
     software at all associated with mobility. The mobile node must have
     some kind of global mobility protocol if it is to move from one
     domain of edge mobility support to another and maintain session
     continuity, although no global mobility protocol is required if the
     mobile node only moves within the coverage area of the localized
     mobility management protocol or no session continuity is required
     during global movement. Also, if the last hop link is a wireless
     link, every wireless link protocol requires handover support on the
     mobile node in the physical and medium access control layers,
     typically in the wireless interface driver. Information passed from
     the medium access control layer to the IP layer on the mobile node
     may be necessary to trigger IP signaling for IP handover. Such
     movement detection support at the IP level may be required in order
     to determine whether the mobile node's default router is still
     reachable after the move to a new access point has occurred at the
     medium access control layer. Whether or not such support is
     required depends on whether the medium access control layer can
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 8]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
     completely hide link movement from the IP layer. For cellular type
     wireless link protocols, the mobile node and network undergo an
     extensive negotiation at the medium access control layer prior to
     handover, so it may be possible to trigger routing update without
     any IP protocol involvement. However, for a wireless link protocol
     such as IEEE 802.11 [7] in which the decision for handover is
     entirely in the hands of the mobile node, IP layer movement
     detection signaling from the mobile node may be required to trigger
     a routing update.
     The goal is that the localized mobility management solution should
     be able to support any mobile node that joins the link and that has
     a  interface  that  can  communicate  with  the  network,  without
     requiring localized mobility management software on the mobile
  3.8 Support for IPv4 and IPv6 (Goal #8)
     While most of this document is written with IPv6 in mind, localized
     mobility management is a problem in IPv4 networks as well. A
     solution for localized mobility that works for both versions of IP
     is desirable, though the actual protocol may be slightly different
     due to the technical details of how each IP version works. From
     Goal #7 (Section 3.7), minimizing mobile node support for localized
     mobility means that ideally no IP version-specific changes should
     be required on the mobile node for localized mobility, and that
     global  mobility  protocols  for  both  IPv4  and  IPv6  should  be
     supported. Any IP version-specific features should be confined to
     the network protocol.
  3.9  Re-use of Existing Protocols Where Sensible (Goal #9)
     Many existing protocols are available as Internet Standards upon
     which the NETLMM protocol can be built. The design of the protocol
     should have a goal to re-use existing protocols where it makes
     architectural and engineering sense to do so. The design should
     not, however, attempt to re-use existing protocols where there is
     no real architectural or engineering reason. For example, the suite
     of Internet Standards contains several good candidate protocols for
     the transport layer, so there is no real need to develop a new
     transport protocol specifically for NETLMM.  Re-use is clearly a
     good  engineering  decision  in  this  case,  since  backward
     compatibility with existing protocol stacks is important. On the
     other  hand,  the  network-based,  localized  mobility  management
     functionality  being  introduced  by  NETLMM  is  a  new  piece  of
     functionality, and therefore any decision about whether to re-use
     an existing global mobility management protocol should carefully
     consider whether re-using such a protocol really meets the needs of
     the functional architecture for network-based localized mobility
     management. The case for re-use is not so clear in this case, since
     there is no compelling backward compatibility argument.
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 9]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
  3.10 Localized Mobility Management Independent of Global Mobility
       Management (Goal #10)
     Localized  mobility  management  should  be  implementable  and
     deployable  independently  of  any  global  mobility  management
     protocol. This enables the choice of local and global mobility
     management to be made independently of particular protocols that
     are implemented and deployed to solve the two different sorts of
     mobility management problems. The operator can choose a particular
     localized mobility management protocol according to the specific
     features of their access network. It can subsequently upgrade the
     localized mobility management protocol on its own, without even
     informing the mobile nodes. Similarly, the mobile nodes can use a
     global  mobility  management  protocol  that  best  suits  their
     requirements, or even not use one at all. Also, a mobile node can
     move into a new access network without having to check that it
     understands the localized mobility management protocol being used
     The goal is that the implementation and deployment of the localized
     mobility management protocol should not restrict, or be restricted
     by, the choice of global mobility management protocol.
  3.11 Configurable Data Plane Forwarding between Local Mobility Anchor
       and Mobile Access Gateway (Goal #11)
     Different  network  operators  may  require  different  types  of
     forwarding options between the LMA and the MAGs for mobile node
     data plane traffic. An obvious forwarding option that has been used
     in past IETF localized mobility management protocols is IP-IP
     encapsulation for bidirectional tunneling. The tunnel endpoints are
     the LMA and the MAGs. But other options are possible. Some network
     deployments may prefer routing-based solutions. Others may require
     security tunnels using IPsec ESP encapsulation if part of the
     localized mobility management domain runs over a public access
     network and the network operator wants to protect the traffic.
     A goal of the NETLMM protocol is to allow the forwarding between
     the LMA and MAGs to be configurable depending on the particulars of
     the network deployment. Configurability is not expected to be
     dynamic as in controlled by the arrival of a mobile node; but
     rather, configuration is expected to be similar in time scale to
     configuration for routing. The NETLMM protocol may designate a
     default forwarding mechanism. It is also possible that additional
     work  may  be  required  to  specify  the  interaction  between  a
     particular forwarding mechanism and the NETLMM protocol, but this
     work is not in scope of the NETLMM base protocol.
  4.0   IANA Considerations
     There are no IANA considerations for this document.
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 10]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
  5.0   Security Considerations
     There are two kinds of security issues involved in network-based
     localized mobility management: security between the mobile node and
     the network, and security between network elements that participate
     in  the  NETLMM  protocol.  The  security-related  goals  in  this
     document, described in Section 3.3 and 3.5, focus on the former,
     because those are unique to network-based mobility management. The
     threat analysis document [2] contains a more detailed discussion of
     both kinds of threats, which the protocol design must address.
  6.0   Acknowledgements
     The  authors  would  like  to  acknowledge  the  following  for
     particularly diligent reviewing: Vijay Devarapalli, Peter McCann,
     Gabriel  Montenegro,  Vidya  Narayanan,  Pekka  Savola,  and  Fred
  7.0   Author's Addresses
        James Kempf
        DoCoMo USA Labs
        181 Metro Drive, Suite 300
        San Jose, CA 95110
        Phone: +1 408 451 4711
        Email: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
        Kent Leung
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        170 West Tasman Drive
        San Jose, CA 95134
        EMail: kleung@cisco.com
        Phil Roberts
        Motorola Labs
        Schaumberg, IL
        Email: phil.roberts@motorola.com
        Katsutoshi Nishida
        NTT DoCoMo Inc.
        3-5 Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka-shi
        Phone: +81 46 840 3545
        Email: nishidak@nttdocomo.co.jp
        Gerardo Giaretta
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 11]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
        Telecom Italia Lab
        via G. Reiss Romoli, 274
        10148 Torino
        Phone: +39 011 2286904
        Email: gerardo.giaretta@tilab.com
        Marco Liebsch
        NEC Network Laboratories
        Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
        69115 Heidelberg
        Phone: +49 6221-90511-46
        Email: marco.liebsch@ccrle.nec.de
  8.0   Normative References
       [1] Kempf, J., editor, "Problem Statement for IP Local Mobility,"
           Internet Draft, Work in Progress.
       [2] Vogt, C., and Kempf, J., "Security Threats to Network-based
           Localized Mobility Management", Internet Draft, Work in
  9.0   Informative References
       [3] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and Nikander, P., "SEcure
           Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March, 2005.
       [4] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet,"
           RFC 1958, June, 1996.
       [5] Choi, J, and Daley, G., "Goals of Detecting Network
           Attachment in IPv6", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.
       [6] Eronen, P., editor, "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
           (MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, June 2006.
       [7] IEEE, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC)and Physical
           Layer (PHY) specifications", IEEE Std. 802.11, 1999.
       [8] IEEE, "Port-based Access Control", IEEE LAN/MAN Standard
           802.1x, June, 2001.
       [9] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and Arkko, J., "Mobility Support in
           IPv6", RFC 3775, June, 2004.
      [10] Manner, J., and Kojo, M., "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC
           3753, June, 2004.
      [11] Moskowitz, R., and Nikander, P., "Host Identity Protocol
           (HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May, 2006.
      [12] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
           August, 2002.
      [13] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., El Malki, K., and Bellier, L.,
           "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6)", RFC
           4140, August, 2005.
      [14] Vida, R., and Costa, L., " Multicast Listener Discovery
           Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 12]

     Internet Draft              NETLMM Goals         October, 2006
  10.0  IPR Statements
     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 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
     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 ietf-
  11.0  Disclaimer of Validity
     This document and the information contained herein are provided on
  12.0  Copyright Notice
     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  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
     Kempf, editor            Expires April, 2007            [Page 13]