This document presents a framework discussing the role of various
protocols andmechanisms that could be considered candidates for supporting
Emergency Telecommunication Services (ETS) within a single administrative
domain. Comments about their potential usage as well as their current
deployment are provided to the reader. Specific solutions are not
Working Group Summary
The IEPREP WG supported the advancement of this document.
This document was reviewed for the IESG by Jon Peterson.
Note to RFC Editor
A more ambitious way of supporting the mobile user is through the use
of the Mobile IP (MIP) protocol. In this case and at the IP level,
foreign networks introduce the concept of triangle routing and the
potential for multiple access points and service context within a
subnetwork. In addition, policy plays a critical role in dictating
the measure of available services to the mobile user.
The beaconing capability of MIP allows it to offer a measure of
application transparent mobility as a mobile host (MH) moves from one
subnetwork to another.
However, this feature may not be available in
most domains. In addition, its management requirements may
discourage its widespread deployment and use. Hence, users should
probably not rely on its existence, but rather may want to expect a
more simpler approach based on DHCP as described above. The subject
of mobile IP is discussed below in Section 4.
A more ambitious way of supporting the mobile user is through
the use of the Mobile IP (MIP) protocol. MIP offers a measure of
application transparent mobility as a mobile host moves
from one subnetwork to another while keeping the same stable
IP address registered at a global anchor point. However, this
feature may not always be available or in use. In any case,
where it is in use, at least some of the packets destined to
and from the mobile host go through the home network.