INTERNET-DRAFT J. Loughney (Editor)
Internet Engineering Task Force Nokia
D. Blair
Cisco
P. Hazy/H. Li/M. Jaseemuddin
G. Tardy
Nortel
O. H. Levkowetz
ABNW
J. Manner
University of Helsinki
P. Neumiller
3Com Corporation
R. Ramjee
Lucent
Issued: February 23, 2001
Expires: August 23, 2001
SeaMoby Micro Mobility Problem Statement
<draft-ietf-seamoby-mm-problem-01.txt>
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-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as 'work in progress.'
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
Seamless mobility requires preserving the capability, security, and
quality of service offered to a mobile node during handovers. To
achieve seamlessness, low (ideally no) latency and low (ideally
zero) packet loss handover protocols are needed. Limiting the effect
of handovers has the potential to improve handover performance in
terms of latency and packet loss. This draft identifies the problem
area for seamless mobility and defines the scope of the work for the
SeaMoby work group.
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
Abstract..............................................................1
1 Introduction........................................................3
1.1 Scope ...........................................................3
1.2 Problem Statement ...............................................4
1.3 Terminology .....................................................4
1.4 Architectural Diagram.............................................6
2 Overview............................................................7
2.1 Goals ...........................................................8
3 Interaction / Comparison With Other Protocols.......................8
3.1 Comparison with Mobile IP .......................................8
3.1.1 Scalability & Performance Related Issues .....................9
3.2 MANET / Ad-Hoc Networking Comparison ...........................10
4 Scenarios..........................................................10
4.1 Intra-domain mobility ..........................................10
4.1.1 Handover Within a Subnet ....................................10
4.1.2 Seamless Intra-domain Mobility With Optimized Routing. ......11
4.1.3 Confidentiality and Optimal Path When Roaming ...............11
4.1.4 Mobile Network and Route Aggregation ........................11
4.2 Inter-domain mobility ..........................................11
4.2.1 Local Mobility Spanning Multiple Domains ....................11
4.2.2 Local mobility restricted to a single domain ................12
4.3 Local-mobility protocol deployment scenarios ...................12
4.3.1 Options to Deploy Local-mobility Protocol in Routers ........12
4.3.2 Ease of Deployment by Allowing Plug and Play Capability .....12
4.3.3 Local-mobility Protocol in Different ADs ....................12
4.4 Summary ........................................................13
5 Next Steps.........................................................13
6 Security Considerations............................................13
7 IANA Considerations................................................14
8 Acknowledgments....................................................14
9 Author's Addresses.................................................14
10 References........................................................15
Full Copyright Statement.............................................16
Loughney (editor) [Page 2
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
1 Introduction
The convergence of wireless networking and IP networking requires
solutions for transporting realtime application data to IP enabled
mobile devices and mobile networks. Current IP mobility solutions
tend to focus primarily on best effort data transport to and from a
mobile device where the routable IP address (for example, Mobile IP
Care-of Address) of the Mobile Device changes during handover.
Seamless handover for realtime applications imposes strict
requirements on latency and packet loss. Packet drops should be
minimized when moving from one access router to another. Latency
due to the handover from one access router to another should be
minimized so as not to impact the applications running on a mobile
device or mobile network.
The assumption is that a local protocol can address these goals by
limiting its applicability to a smaller domain thus reducing the
amount of signaling needed that should improve performance. This
assumption may require that the scope of a local mobility protocol
be restricted to the case of mobility support of a mobile host whose
routable IP address does not change.
In this draft, the term 'local mobility' is used in place of
micromobility.
1.1 Scope
The scope of mobility will be developed as part of the solution
space. Possibilities include:
Mobility where the User's routable IP address does not change
Where the mobility may be:
Within a subnet.
Within an administrative domain.
Between administrative domains.
Within a limited number of hops
This is not meant to be an exhaustive survey, but to point in the
direction for further analysis. For example, source-based routing
[DSR] and tunneling [2002] are two possible solutions for mobility.
Some source routing schemes [DSR] allow:
"... packet routing to be trivially loop-free, avoids the need for
up-to-date routing information in the intermediate nodes through
which packets are forwarded, and allows nodes forwarding or
overhearing packets to cache the routing information in them for
their own future use."
Loughney (editor) [Page 3
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
Tunnel-based approaches [2002][MIPv6] may have better scaling
properties, but this may not be an issue with local mobility
domains.
1.2 Problem Statement
There are many proposals for adding and enhancing mobility in IP
networks, for example Mobile IP [2002][MIPv6]. There are a number
of proposals to optimize Mobile IP signaling to allow fast handovers
[FAST MIPv6]. However, none of these completely address the complex
interaction of parameters and protocols needed for Seamless
Handovers.
A local mobility mechanism, which localizes processing and
signaling, thus enabling less latency, should allow better
scalability, performance and reliability resulting in seamless
handovers. Moreover, a lightweight approach, customized to the exact
requirements of local mobility while interoperable with a more
general mobility mechanism (e.g. vanilla Mobile-IP [2002]), would
allow an easier deployment in situations where local mobility is
sufficient, or several general mobility mechanisms are involved.
Applicability of the above might be useful for networks with
multiple layer 3 access points with unreliable connectivity between
the mobile and those access points, for example.
While studying solutions for seamless handovers, the SEAMOBY Working
Group should include the following considerations:
* Mobility maintaining the same routable IP address of a mobile
node or mobile network.
* Handover between heterogeneous networks. For example, 802.11,
Bluetooth and 3G cellular.
* How to discover a new Access Link and the Access Router serving
the new Access Link.
* How to discover the bandwidth, cost, error rate (and other
properties) of candidate Access Links.
* Involving QoS characteristics as part of the handover process.
* Optimize the path for mobile-to-mobile communications.
* Enable plug and play capabilities for Mobile Devices, Access
Routers/Access Links.
* Support for mobility of mobile hosts and mobile networks
Prioritization of, additions to, and details of the above items will
be worked out during the requirements phase.
1.3 Terminology
See [SM Terms] for additional terminology.
Local Mobility The movement of an IP device without requiring
a change to its routable IP address. Although
Loughney (editor) [Page 4
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
its point of attachment may change during the
move, the IP address used to reach the device
(both its home and IP subnet routable IP
address) do not change.
Seamless Handover A handover procedure which does not result in
any change in service capability, security, or
quality. This procedure has strict timing
requirement for the execution and low (zero)
packet loss.
Subnet A range of IP address designated by a common
prefix constitutes a subnet. A subnet exists
when no IP routing is required to reach the
intended host. Examples: For IPv4: 10.1.1.0/24
(subnet mask is 255.255.255.0), for IPv6:
1234:5678:90AB:CDEF::/64
Network A Network is characterized by a range of IP
address designated by a common prefix and may
contain one or more adjacent subnets
interconnected by IP routers.
Administrative Domain A collection of networks under the same
administrative control and grouped together
for administrative purposes. [2753]
Local Mobility Domain A Local Mobility Domain contains one or more
IP subnets, networks, or Administrative
Domains. Within the Local Mobility Domain,
the routable IP address assigned to a Mobile
Host or Mobile Router serving a Mobile Network
does not change.
Mobile Node (MN) An IP node capable of changing its point of
attachment to the network. The MN can be
either a mobile end-node or a mobile router
serving an arbitrarily complex mobile network.
Mobile Host (MH) An IP node capable of changing its point of
attachment to the network. The MH only refers
to an end-node without further routing
support.
Mobile Router (MR) An IP Router that may change its point of
attachment to an IP network.
Mobile Network An IP network where one or more Mobile Routers
are used to access a larger IP network.
Loughney (editor) [Page 5
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
Access Point (AP) A layer 2 device, which is connected to one or
more Access Routers and offers the wireless
link connection to the MH. Access Points are
sometimes called 'base stations'. Note that
this usage differs from that used by some
Access Router vendors, who call their boxes
'Access Points'.
Access Router (AR) An IP router residing in an Access Network and
connected to one or more access points. An AR
offers connectivity to MNs. The router may
include intelligence beyond simple forwarding
service offered by ordinary IP routers. An AR
communicates with one or more Access Points.
Access Network Gateway (ANG) An IP gateway that separates the Access
Network from a third party network.
Access Network (AN) An IP network that includes one or more ARs
and ANGs.
Radio Cell An area associated with each AP, where there
is radio coverage, i.e. where radio
communication between a MN and the specific AP
is possible.
1.4 Architectural Diagram
The following diagram proposes an example architecture, for
reference. It is not meant to impose any restriction upon mobility,
but for use to better visualize the problem space.
Loughney (editor) [Page 6
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
+-+
| | ---+
+-+ |
AP1 |
|
+-+ | +-----+ +-----+ |
|<--> | | ---+---| AR1 |-------------------| | |
[] +-+ | +-----+ \ /| ANG |--|
MN AP2 | \ / | | |
| \ / +-----+ |
+-+ | \ / |
| |----+ X |
+-+ / \ |
AP3 / \ |
/ \ +-----+ |
+-+ +-----+ / \| | |
|<--> | |-------| AR2 |--------------------| ANG |--|
[] +-+ +-----+ | | |
MR AP4 +-----+ |
|
Administrative Domain (AD) 1 |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|-
Administrative Domain (AD) 2 |
|
|
+-+ +-----+ +-----+ |
|<--> | | -------| AR3 |-------------------| | |
[] +-+ /+-----+ /| ANG |--|
MH AP5 / / | | |
/ / +-----+ |
+-+ / / |
| |---- / |
+-+ / |
AP6 / |
/ |
+-+ +-----+ / |
| |-------| AR4 |----------- |
+-+ \ +-----+ / |
AP7 \ / |
\ / |
\ +-----+ / |
--| AR5 |------ |
+-----+ |
Figure 1: Architectural Diagram for Local Mobility
2 Overview
Local Mobility should also consider if the new access router (ARn+1)
provides the same 'services' (QoS, etc.) as expected by the user. A
local mobility solution should (a) ensure that ARn+1 provides the
Loughney (editor) [Page 7
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
same QoS as ARn or (b) alert applications that QoS is changing or
has changed.
2.1 Goals
Below are listed a number of issues, which any local mobility
solution should address. The exact nature shall be detailed in a
requirements for micromobility document.
* Mobility without changing the routable IP address
* Use Mobile IP WG protocols for mobility between local mobility
domains
* The solution is IP version neutral, although implementation
details may differ for IPv4 and IPv6
* Handover to new AR that can provide the same quality and
security of service as the old AR or alert the application if
change occurs
* Scale well with the size of the local mobility domain
* Inter-technology/heterogeneous mobility support
* Mobility support for mobile hosts and mobile networks
* Use MIP for signaling from the MN.
* Enable optimized routing for MN to MN communications.
* Inter-operate with existing QoS protocols (i.e. RSVP)
* Plug and play (automatic setup and recovery, handle failures
gracefully)
* Allow a progressive deployment
* Bandwidth optimization, maximizing throughput e.g. with a smart
handover algorithm
* User location confidentiality
* Support connectivity to multiple Access Routers simultaneously
(IP diversity / load balancing)
* Allow simple ad-hoc networking
These goals should serve as input to local mobility requirements.
3 Interaction / Comparison With Other Protocols
Local Mobility will interwork with Context Transfer.
This work will define the areas of intersection (and non-
intersection) between SeaMoby and the following:
* Mobile IP [2002], [MIPv6]
* Fast Handovers [Fast IP6]
* Hierarchical MIPv4 / MIPv6
* Regional Registrations for IPv6
* Mobility management in other networks
3.1 Comparison with Mobile IP
Goals Solution based on Mobile IP
Loughney (editor) [Page 8
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
1) Seamlessness: Fast/Proactive Handover work
2) Scalability: Hierarchical Mobile IP work
3) Efficiency: Requires tunneling; Route Optimization
work; For localized updates, Hierarchical
Mobile IP
4) Configurability: Plug & Play of ARs/APs not addressed.
Autoconfiguration is addressed in IPv6,
but capabilities of the APs is not
addressed by Mobile IP.
5) Reliability: HA/GFA (MIPv4); MAPs (MIPv6) need
redundancy, failover capability
6) QoS: controversial; tunneling complicates QoS
support.
7) Paging: controversial; not addressed
8) AAA/Registration: controversial; speed of
(re)authentication and/or
(re)registration during cross-AD handover
may require expedited techniques or
credential development.
9) Security/Message controversial; speed of message (e.g.,
Authentication: context transfer) authentication during
cross-AD handover may require expedited
techniques (e.g., key or ticket
infrastructure).
10) Mobile Network Optimized Routing in IPv4 does not
Support: support mobile routing; nor does MIPv6
sufficiently define interoperable support
for mobile networks.
Thus, Mobile IP WG does not completely cover the solution space
for Seamless mobility. More detailed analysis should be done to
determine the applicability of Mobile IP to local mobility and to
identify Mobile IP's shortcomings.
3.1.1 Scalability & Performance Related Issues
For MIPv4, there is a concern that a GFA/FA in every AR may not
scale or even be desirable in extremely inexpensive AR devices.
Also, there is a concern that putting an FA essentially everywhere
would add complication to what could be a relatively simple micro-
mobility handover.
Interactions between Mobile IP and QoS mechanisms (for example RSVP)
are complex and may not work fast enough. [MIP RSVP] They introduce
additional signaling.
It has been suggested that in order to scale MIP, Hierarchical /
Regional FAs, GFAs, MAPs and other such "in the middle of the
network boxes" are needed. This may be considered a limitation of
MIP. This begins to chip away at some fundamental philosphies of the
internet, such as making the network robust against single points of
failures; that intelligence exists at the edge and so on.
Loughney (editor) [Page 9
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
3.2 MANET / Ad-Hoc Networking Comparison
The MANET WG in the IETF has an important charter to create a
protocol for mobiles arranged in arbitrary and highly dynamic
associations. This work is striving for robust and highly scalable
routing solutions. Currently, MANET is not considering fast or
seamless handover.
In many instances, for example small residential networks found in
the home, the network may be relatively small and has far less
dynamics. The network may still have a requirement for fast and/or
seamless handovers. For this reason there may be some overlap
between SeaMoby and ad-hoc networking solutions. Therefore, SeaMoby
MUST be able to co-exist gracefully with any MANET solutions
algorithm that does become standardized.
4 Scenarios
This section is intended as to provide some simple, descriptive
examples of the problem. The network is based on Figure 1, in
section 1.4. In the scenarios, the term mobile node (MN) is used,
but the node could be a mobile host, mobile router, etc.
I work for company X that controls and manages its intra-net AD1 in
Figure 1. Employees at my work use mobile hosts to roam within AD1.
In the city, I can be reached through ISP Y's cellular network, AD2
in Figure 1.
4.1 Intra-domain mobility
Company X provides mobility service to its employees within the
intra-net AD1. The IP address of a mobile host remains fixed
regardless of its attachment point within the administrative domain.
4.1.1 Handover Within a Subnet
The MN moves out of AP3 (802.11) coverage area, and can select AP2
(802.11) or AP1 (Bluetooth), which are all connected on the same
subnet (e.g. - Ethernet) to AR1.
On each handover, the new access point must ensure sufficient
capacity to support traffic related to the mobile node aside of pre-
existing connections. In this example, the Bluetooth access point
AP1 experiences temporary environmental noise (e.g. - an oven), and
the corresponding loss of available capacity. Therefore, a handover
to AP2 is selected. This is an intra-AR handover between APs of the
same technology. In this case Inter-AP protocol (e.g. - 802.11 IAPP)
will be used to do handover.
Loughney (editor) [Page 10
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
Later, the MN moves to an area that is only covered by AP1
(Bluetooth), so an inter-technology handover occurs between AP2
(802.11) to AP1 (Bluetooth)
4.1.2 Seamless Intra-domain Mobility With Optimized Routing.
A user establishes a video phone call with a colleague. During the
call both parties move around the building; their Mobile Nodes hop
between subnets while changing their attachment point. However,
there is no degradation in the quality of the video phone call. The
network continuously maintains an optimized communication path
between the two mobile nodes. More precisely, the path for a session
between two mobile hosts should be ideally the same as the path
selected if the mobile nodes were fixed devices. This is an instance
of seamless intra-domain mobility with optimized routing.
4.1.3 Confidentiality and Optimal Path When Roaming
An IETF member wants to download drafts while moving between several
work group meetings. The IETF Member would like to maintain
confidentiality, while doing so. Binding Updates (BU) will reveal
location, and home agent (HA) produce triangular routing. Therefore,
it would be very useful to have a local-mobility solution supporting
location confidentiality within the administrative domain while
providing optimal communication path.
4.1.4 Mobile Network and Route Aggregation
An ISP provides wireless service for users travelling on the city
train. The trains have an IP network installed to provide Internet
access to the users on the train. There might be one or more mobile
routers that have radio interfaces to communicate with the AP's of
the ISP. To reach the hosts on the moving train, it is desirable to
have an aggregate route for all the hosts in the train. This is an
instance where an ISP provides local mobility for route aggregates.
4.2 Inter-domain mobility
Service providers may make agreements allowing local mobility to
span different administrative districts, or may simply provide
roaming between these ADs. This can produce the following scenarios.
4.2.1 Local Mobility Spanning Multiple Domains
When I drive to the supermarket, I enter Y's domain. My company X
has an agreement with Y that allows me to make fast hand-off to Y's
domain with the same IP address that I used to roam within X domain.
The ISP Y provides under this agreement best effort connectivity to
me (using the IP address assigned by X) for some time, before it
requires me to perform Mobile-IP, e.g. for negotiating new IP
address, issuing BUs, doing AAA, etc. As a result of Mobile-IP
processing, I will get a new IP address for roaming within Y's
Loughney (editor) [Page 11
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
domain, and other contracted services, such as QoS. The ISP Y
provides best effort connectivity for the transitory period, because
it must perform authentication and authorization, and retrieve
user's service (QoS) profile, before providing QoS and other
contracted services. This is an instance of fast handover handled by
local mobility protocol first, then an inter-domain mechanism (e.g.
Mobile-IP)is invoked for AAA and contracted services.
4.2.2 Local mobility restricted to a single domain
When I drive to the supermarket, I enter Y's domain. My company X
has an agreement with Y that allows me to roam within Y's cellular
network and receive my contracted services. The ISP Y first assigns
me a new IP address before providing me connectivity. Hence, as soon
as I discover that I am in Y's domain, I must initiate Mobile-IP
processing to perform inter-domain hand-off.
4.3 Local-mobility protocol deployment scenarios
4.3.1 Options to Deploy Local-mobility Protocol in Routers
The local mobility protocol may be deployed in all the nodes or a
selected set of the nodes in a network. The network nodes with
local-mobility routing capability can be named as Mobile Location
Aware Nodes (MLAN). If all the nodes in a network are MLAN, each
node knows how to forward the data packets towards a mobile device.
If only a subset of the network nodes are MLAN, tunnels can be used
to connect the MLANs so that the data packets can be tunneled
through the non-MLANs between a pair of MLANs. Therefore, we can
think that the local-mobility protocol is applicable among the MLANs
for local-mobility routing in the network. Conceptually, there
should be no difference for the protocol whether it is used in the
network routers or mobile agents.
4.3.2 Ease of Deployment by Allowing Plug and Play Capability
A service provider may want to temporally setup wireless service in
a location, or the service provider want to expand its wireless
service to a new area. When the new equipment connected to the
network, the new routers/agents can learn how to forward data
packets by automatically learning from neighbors or other sources. A
new access point should learn the capability of its neighboring APs.
This automatic learning process enables plug and play capability
4.3.3 Local-mobility Protocol in Different ADs
The local mobility domain can have one-to-one mapping to the
administrative domain. In this deployment case, a handover between
two ADs requires change of the routable IP address of the mobile
node. In this case a macro-mobility protocol, such as Mobile IP, is
needed inter-domain handover.
Loughney (editor) [Page 12
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
A local mobility domain can span multiple ADs if a trust
relationship exists between them allowing the use of the same
routable IP address across ADs.
4.4 Summary
AD Administrative Domain
MD Mobility Domain
SN Subnet
X -> Applicable
| intra-SN | inter-AD |inter-AD
|intra-tech|inter-tech|inter-SN|intra-MD|inter-MD
-------------------+----------+----------+--------+--------+--------
inter-AP prot | X | | | |
local mobility prot| X | X | X | X |
Mobile-IP | X | X | X | X | X
|Inter-AP prot | local mob. Prot | MIP
------------------------+--------------+-----------------+----------
optimized route | X | X |
location confidentiality| X (1) | X (2) | X (3)
QoS Support | x (5) | X |
Context Transfer | x (5) | X | X (4)
Transparent | L3+ | L4+ | L4+
Plug & Play | X | X |
(1)except for those participating in the inter-AP protocol in the
same subnet
(2)transparent at least to anyone outside of the MD
(3)transparent to the CN, and only if reverse tunneling is used
(4) proprietary at the moment
(5) may be redundant in some cases where the L2 provides similar/same
mechanisms.
5 Next Steps
It is proposed that the next steps be:
* Setting of requirements for local mobility
* Proposal of solutions
* Analysis of solutions
* Recommendation of micromobility solution
In the analysis, a critical piece will be to identify the
shortcomings of Mobile IP.
6 Security Considerations
This type of non-protocol document does not directly affect the
security of the Internet.
Loughney (editor) [Page 13
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
7 IANA Considerations
This document does not directly affect IANA.
8 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kulwinder Atwal, Peter Lei, Charlie
Perkins, Michael A. Ramalho, Philip Roberts, Luca Salgarelli, Hesham
Soliman, Michael Thomas, George Tsirtsis, and Mika Ylianttila for
their comments and contributions to this document.
9 Author's Addresses
John Loughney (editor)
Nokia Research Center
PO Box 407
FIN-00045 Nokia Group
Finland
john.loughney@nokia.com
Dana Blair
Cisco
dblair@cisco.com
Peter Hazy
Nortel Networks
100 Constellation Crescent
Nepean, ON K2G 6J8
Canada
Phone: 1-613-768-2969
Muhammad Jaseemuddin
Nortel Networks
100 Constellation Crescent
Nepean, ON K2G 6J8
Canada
Phone: 1-613-765-7520
jaseem@nortelnetworks.com
O. Henrik Levkowetz
A Brand New World
Osterogatan 1
S-164 28 Kista
Sweden
henrik.levkowetz@abrandnewworld.se
Hongyi Li
Nortel Networks
100 Constellation Crescent
Nepean, ON K2G 6J8
Canada
Phone: 1-613-763-5966
Loughney (editor) [Page 14
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
hyli@nortelnetworks.com
Jukka Manner
Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
FIN-00014 Helsinki
FINLAND
jmanner@cs.Helsinki.fi
Phillip Neumiller
3Com Corporation
1800 W. Central Road
Mount Prospect IL 60056
USA
phil_neumiller@3com.com
Ram Ramjee,
Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies,
101 Crawfords Corner Road,
Holmdel, NJ 07733
USA
Phone: 1-732-949-3306
Fax: 1-732-949-4513
ramjee@bell-labs.com
Guilhem Tardy
Nortel Networks
100 Constellation Crescent
Nepean, ON K2G 6J8
Canada
Phone: 1-613-763-1953
guilhem.tardy@nortelnetworks.com
10 References
[2002] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support". Internet
Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments (RFC)
2002, October 1996.
[2460] Deering, S., and Hinden, R. (Editors); "Internet
Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"; RFC 2460,
December 1998.
[2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., Guerin, R.; "A
Framework for Policy-based Admission Control"; RFC
2753; January 2000.
[MIPv6] David B. Johnson, Charles Perkins, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-12.txt, April
2000.
Loughney (editor) [Page 15
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
[SM Terms] Manner, J. et al; "Mobility Related Terminology";
<draft-manner-seamoby-terms-00.txt>; Work In
Progress; January 12, 2001.
[Fast MIP6] Tsirtsis, G. (Editor), "Fast Handovers for Mobile
IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mipv6-00.txt, a work
in progress; February 2001.
[DSR] Johnson, D. et al. "The Dynamic Source Routing
Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks"; <draft-ietf-
manet-dsr-04.txt>; Work in Progress; November 17,
2000.
[TORA] Park, V. et al. "Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm
(TORA) Version 1 Functional Specification"; <draft-
ietf-manet-tora-spec-03.txt>; Work in Progress;
November 24, 2000.
[2501] Corson, S.; Macker, J.; "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
(MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
Evaluation Considerations"; RFC 2501; January 1999.
[MIP RSVP] Thomas, M.; "Analysis of Mobile IP and RSVP
Interactions"; <draft-thomas-seamoby-rsvp-analysis-
00.txt>; work in progress; February 12, 2001.
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
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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Loughney (editor) [Page 16
Internet Draft SeaMoby MM Problem Statement February 23, 2001
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Loughney (editor) [Page 17]
Datatracker
Report a datatracker bug
draft-ietf-seamoby-mm-problem-01
None
| Document | Document type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(seamoby WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Select version | |||
| Compare versions | |||
| Author |
John A. Loughney
Email authors |
||
| RFC stream |
|
||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Other formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion |