As per Relevance of the word mechanism, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 2005
Category: Standards Track October 1996
Applicability Statement for IP Mobility
Status of this
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
As required by [RFC 1264], this report discusses the applicability
Mobile IP to provide host mobility in the Internet. In particular
this document describes the key features of Mobile IP and shows
the requirements for advancement to Proposed Standard RFC have
satisfied
1. Protocol
Mobile IP provides an efficient, scalable mechanism for node
within the Internet. Using Mobile IP, nodes may change their point
of-attachment to the Internet without changing their IP address
This allows them to maintain transport and higher-layer
while moving. Node mobility is realized without the need
propagate host-specific routes throughout the Internet
fabric. The protocol is documented in [MIP-PROTO].
In brief, Mobile IP routing works as follows. Packets destined to
mobile node are routed first to its home network -- a
identified by the network prefix of the mobile node's (permanent
home address. At the home network, the mobile node's home
intercepts such packets and tunnels them to the mobile node's
recently reported care-of address. At the endpoint of the tunnel
the inner packets are decapsulated and delivered to the mobile node
In the reverse direction, packets sourced by mobile nodes are
to their destination using standard IP routing mechanisms
Thus, Mobile IP relies on protocol tunneling to deliver packets
mobile nodes that are away from their home network. The
node's home address is hidden from routers along the path from
home agent to the mobile node due to the presence of the tunnel.
encapsulating packet is destined to the mobile node's care-of
Solomon Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2005 Mobile IP Applicability Statement October 1996
-- a topologically significant address -- to which standard
routing mechanisms can deliver packets
The Mobile IP protocol defines the following
- an authenticated registration procedure by which a mobile
informs its home agent(s) of its care-of address(es);
- an extension to ICMP Router Discovery [RFC1256] which allows
nodes to discover prospective home agents and foreign agents;
- the rules for routing packets to and from mobile nodes,
the specification of one mandatory tunneling mechanism ([MIP-IPinIP])
and several optional tunneling mechanisms ([MIP-MINENC]
[RFC1701]).
2.
Mobile IP is intended to solve node mobility across changes in
subnet. It is just as suitable for mobility across homogeneous
as it is for mobility across heterogeneous media. That is, Mobile
facilitates node movement from one Ethernet segment to another
well as it accommodates node movement from an Ethernet segment to
wireless LAN
One can think of Mobile IP as solving the "macro" mobility
problem. It is less well suited for more "micro" mobility
applications -- for example, handoff amongst wireless transceivers
each of which covers only a very small geographic area. In
later situation, link-layer mechanisms for link maintenance (i.e
link-layer handoff) might offer faster convergence and less
than Mobile IP
Mobile IP scales to handle a large number of mobile nodes in
Internet. Without route optimization as described in [MIP-OPTIM],
however, the home agent is a potential load point when serving
mobile nodes. When home agents become overburdened, additional
agents can be added -- and even dynamically discovered by
nodes -- using mechanisms defined in the Mobile IP documents
Finally, it is noted that mobile nodes are assigned (home)
addresses largely the same way in which stationary hosts are
long-term IP addresses; namely, by the authority who owns them
Properly applied, Mobile IP allows mobile nodes to communicate
only their home address regardless of their current location.
IP, therefore, makes no attempt to solve the problems related
local or global, IP address, renumbering
Solomon Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2005 Mobile IP Applicability Statement October 1996
3.
Mobile IP mandates the use of cryptographically strong
for all registration messages exchanged between a mobile node and
home agent. Optionally, strong authentication can be used
foreign agents and mobile nodes or home agents. Replay protection
realized via one of two possible mechanisms -- timestamps or nonces
Due to the unavailability of an Internet key management protocol
agent discovery messages are not required to be authenticated
All Mobile IP implementations are required to support, at a minimum
keyed MD5 authentication with manual key distribution.
authentication and key distribution algorithms may be supported
Mobile IP defines security mechanisms only for the
protocol. Implementations requiring privacy and/or authentication
data packets sent to and from a mobile node should use the
security protocols described in RFCs 1827 and 1826 for this purpose
4.
At the time of publication of this Applicability Statement,
Management Information Base (MIB) for Mobile IP has been written
documented in RFC 2006.
5.
Several implementations of Mobile IP are known to exist.
following list gives the origin and a contact for several
implementations
Organization: Contact
CMU Dave Johnson
FTP Software Frank Kastenholz
IBM Charlie Perkins
Motorola Jim Solomon
Nokia Gunyho Gabor
SUN Gabriel Montenegro
Telxon Frank Ciotti
6. Implementation
FTP Software hosted an interim meeting, October 23-27, 1995 in
interoperability of several implementations was demonstrated.
following major features of the Mobile IP protocol were tested
Solomon Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2005 Mobile IP Applicability Statement October 1996
1) Mobile Nodes receiving and processing Agent Advertisements
2) Agents receiving Agent Solicitations and responding with
Advertisements
3) Mobile Nodes registering with foreign agents on foreign networks
4) Packets being received by the mobile node after having
tunneled by the home agent and de-tunneled by the foreign agent
5) Packets from the mobile node being routed directly to
destinations
6) Mobile nodes discovering that their connectivity/subnet
changed and re-registering at their new location
7) Mobile nodes discovering that their current foreign agent
rebooted and therefore re-registering with that foreign agent
8) The required form of tunneling (IP-in-IP
[MIP-IPinIP]) as well as the one of the optional forms of tunneling
namely, Minimal Encapsulation [MIP-MINENC].
9) Mobile nodes de-registering upon returning to their home network
10) Registrations being rejected for authentication failures
including invalid authenticators as well as
identification values (replay protection).
11) TCP connections remaining open (with data flowing) while a
node moved from its home network to a foreign network and
back again to the home network
Interoperability of at least two independent implementations
demonstrated for all of the features listed above
7.
The co-chairs, on behalf of the working group participants,
that the Mobile IP working group has satisfied the requirements
forth in [RFC1264] for the advancement of Mobile IP to
Standard RFC. Specifically, the technical specification document
stable, a MIB has been written, the security architecture has
set forth in accordance with IAB principles, and several
implementations have been demonstrated to be interoperable
8.
[RFC1256] Deering, S., Editor, "ICMP Router Discovery Messages",
1256, September 1991.
[RFC1701] Hanks, S. et. al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)",
RFC 1701, October 1994.
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Routing Protocol
Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991.
Solomon Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2005 Mobile IP Applicability Statement October 1996
[MIP-IPinIP] Perkins, C., Editor, "IP Encapsulation within IP",
RFC 2003, October 1996.
[MIP-OPTIM] Johnson, D., and C. Perkins, "Route Optimization
Mobile IP", Work in Progress
[MIP-PROTO] Perkins, C., Editor, "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002,
October 1996.
[MIP-MINENC] Perkins, C., Editor, "Minimal Encapsulation within IP",
RFC 2004, October 1994.
9. Author's
Questions about this memo can be directed to
Jim
Motorola Inc
1301 E. Algonquin Rd. - Rm 2240
Schaumburg, IL 60196
Voice: +1-847-576-2753
Fax: +1-847-576-3240
EMail: solomon@comm.mot.
Solomon Standards Track [Page 5]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
