2.3.14 Mobility for IPv4 (mip4)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 63rd IETF Meeting in Paris, France. It may now be out-of-date.
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       Additional MIP4 Web Page

Last Modified: 2005-06-28


Peter McCann <mccap@lucent.com>
Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>

Internet Area Director(s):

Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>

Internet Area Advisor:

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: mip4@ietf.org
To Subscribe: mip4-request@ietf.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4/index.html

Description of Working Group:

IP mobility support for IPv4 nodes (hosts and routers) is specified in
RFC3344. RFC 3344 mobility allows a node to continue using its
"permanent" home address as it moves around the internet. The Mobile IP
protocols support transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance
of active TCP connections and UDP port bindings. Besides the basic
Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) protocols, several other drafts deal with concerns
such as optimization, security, extensions, AAA support, and deployment

Mobile IPv4 is currently being deployed on a wide basis (e.g., in
cdma2000 networks). The scope of the deployment is on a fairly large
scale and accordingly, the MIP4 WG will focus on deployment issues and
on addressing known deficiencies and shortcomings in the protocol that
have come up as a result of deployment experience. Specifically, the
working group will complete the work items to facilitate interactions
with AAA environments, interactions with enterprise environments when
Mobile IPv4 is used therein, and updating existing protocol
specifications in accordance with deployment needs and advancing those
protocols that are on the standards track.

Work expected to be done by the MIP4 WG as proposed by this charter is
as follows:

1. MIPv4 has been a proposed standard for several years. It has been
adopted by other standard development organizations and has been
deployed commercially. One of the next steps for the WG is to advance
the protocol to draft standard status. As part of advancing base
Mobile IP specs to DS, the Mobile IPv4 NAI RFC (2794) will be revised
to reflect implementation experience.

2. A mechanism for home agent assignment at the time of mobile-ip
rather than preconfigured for the mobile node, has been proposed.
The WG will take on the task of completing this. The ability to switch
the home agent assigned to a mobile node while registered will also be
considered as part of this task.

3. Work items that are pending from the previous Mobile IP WG, which
will be completed by the MIP4 WG, are:

- RFC3012bis (Challenge-response mechanism)
- low-latency handover draft to experimental status
- completion of the MIB for the revised base Mobile IP
specification (2006bis)
- regional registration draft.

4. The MIP4 WG will also complete the work on Mobile IPv4 interactions
in VPN scenarios. This work will involve identifying the requirements
and a solution development for Mobile IPv4 operation in the presence
of IPsec VPNs.

5. Some issues have been raised with respect to RFC3519. These will be
identified and addressed as appropriate, through errata, revision
of RFC 3519, and/or supplemental documents as needed.

Other potential work items may be identified in the future but will
require an appropriate re-charter.

Goals and Milestones:

Done  AAA Keys for MIPv4 to IESG
Done  MIPv4 VPN interaction problem statement to IESG
Done  Low latency handover to experimental
Done  Dynamic Home Agent assignment protocol solution to IESG
Jan 05  Revised MIPv4 Challenge/Response (3012bis) to IESG
Jan 05  Regional registration document to IESG
Feb 05  Revised rfc2794bis (NAI extension specification) to the IESG
Apr 05  Revised MIPv4 specification to IESG for Draft Standard
Jun 05  Revised MIB for MIPv4 to IESG
Sep 05  MIPv4 VPN Solution to IESG


  • draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4-10.txt
  • draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-statement-03.txt
  • draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04.txt
  • draft-ietf-mip4-dynamic-assignment-04.txt
  • draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-mip4-faerr-01.txt
  • draft-ietf-mip4-reg-tunnel-00.txt

    Request For Comments:

    RFC3846 Standard Mobile IPv4 Extension for AAA Network Access Identifiers
    RFC3957 Standard Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Registration Keys for Mobile IPv4
    RFC4064 Standard Experimental Message, Extension and Error Codes for Mobile IPv4

    Current Meeting Report

    MIP4 WG Minutes (Monday, August 1, 2005, 1815-1945)

    MIP4 WG Minutes (Monday, August 1, 2005, 1815-1945)

    1. Preliminaries: Chairs

    Minute takers: George Tsirtsis

    There were no comments on the agenda.

    2. Document Status: Chairs

    draft status
    draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis New revision needed, then publication req.
    draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis Review needed.
    draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution Review needed.
    draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis Publication Requested
    draft-ietf-mip4-faerr Publication Requested
    draft-ietf-mip4-dynamic-assignment Waiting for AD Writeup


    Henrik: Charlie has produced new Appendix text, but it needs review. Hesham S. offered to do this review.

    AD Evaluation Revised ID Needed
    draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4 AD Evaluation
    draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-statement RFC Ed Queue
    draft-ietf-mip4-experimental-messages RFC 4064

    3. Relevant BOFs: Chairs

    • NETLMM Monday 0900 - 1000
    • MONAMI6 Friday 0900 - 1130

    4. Proposed new charter: Chairs


    A new charter proposal has been submitted. I'ts available at the URL given. However, if any new workitems are proposed and accepted by the WG during this meeting, this will have to be updated.

    5. Proposed new work-items: Chairs

    The following work items are part of the proposed charter update:

    • Radius Attributes
    • Generic Strings
    • FMIPv4

    6. RADIUS attributes for Mobile-IP v4: Kent Leung


    Slides: http://mip4.org/ietf63/mip4-radius.pdf

    No slides were received for this agenda item before the meeting, and Kent was not present in the room. Skipped here, but inserted as agenda item 12, below.

    7. MIPv4 Extension for Configuration Options Exchange: Jayshree Bharatia


    Slides: http://mip4.org/ietf63/mip4-gen-ext.pdf

    This draft defines a Mobile IP extension for configuration options, which should be used by any Mobile IP entity to exchange information of the network entities like DNS server address, previous Foreign Agent (FA) address etc.


    Is this for host configuration from the HA?
    3GPP is using L2 mechanisms to carry info...would be nice to do it over MIP. But this is only one option. This can be used for other things.
    the L2 mechanisms probably provide local info anyway....we need home info too.

    8. Discussion of mip4-gen-ext vs. mip4-host-config-vse: Chairs




    Why not just carry the DHCP option format instead of redefining?
    Options should be minimal, the rest should be done over DHCP
    Should we adopt this or Kent's draft or merge them?
    The Kent draft was proposed 2 years ago with no success. 3GPP2 defined this with VSEs. Cisco also defined VSEs defined as informational. This new draft is good as a way forward for standards track doc. We should not eliminate existing implementations though so the info RFC should also progress.
    Kents draft is in IESG hands and independent. This should go ahead by itself.
    Should we take this on?. 6 say yes. 5 say they will work on it. 0 say it should not be taken on. It will be taken on.
    This will be proposed as a new work item in the updated charter.

    9. Secure Connectivity using Mobile IPv4 and MOBIKE: Vijay Devarapalli


    Slides: http://mip4.org/ietf63/mip4-mobike-connectivity.pdf

    This draft presents an alternative to using dual-MIP (as described in draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-01) for combined MIPv4 and IPsec deployment, when the VPN gateway supports MOBIKE extensions.


    I like the idea. You are using the VPN only when external. OK in enterprise but maybe not always?
    Some enterprises want you to use VPN all the time which is OK, this can be used in this case
    Question. Does this support FA mode when outside? From a network that has FAs?
    No this mode is not supported
    This and the double MIP solution solve the same problem in different ways, with no new protocols, just describe how to use existing tools.
    MOBIKE is between MN and HA...if there is an FA MOBIKE can not be used.
    This is not design for fast handoffs
    Yes, you can probably combine it with fast handoff mechs
    Realize that although MOBIKE provides mobility it is not designed for fast handoffs.
    Both the dual MIP and MIP/MOBIKE solutions require cooperation between the two Mobility clients.
    Do we need both solutions? Henrik/Vijay say yes, Gopal says no. lets take it offline... Discussion continues for a little while more, but Gopal does not have the same viewpoint as others.
    Should we adopt this? As part of the already described VPN problem statement? Or should we merge the two solution in one doc to fully describe the problem and solutions?
    Lets not try the dualMIP solution for this.
    I think dualMIP is stable. This new one is simple 10pg long. We do not need to merge. Lets make them consistent/clean-up.
    OK, no merging. So should we adopt? 12-15 yes. 7 say they will work on it. OK it will be added. 0 say no.
    We should no really have multiple solutions...although I do not have any problem with this particular solution.
    I agree in general, but the two solutions are separate.
    but what should the MN implement?

    Henrik: Yes the default should be addressed.

    Gopal: Why not do this in MOBIKE. We now going to have two
    solutions...back and forth with Henrik...take it offline.
    There is rough consensus in the working group for taking this on, with some dissent about describing 2 (complementary) solutions. This will be proposed as a new work item in the updated charter.

    10. Mobile IPv4 Home Agent Switch Message: Hui Deng


    Slides: http://mip4.org/ietf63/mip4-ha-switch.pdf

    This document specifies a new MIP4 control message that can be used between a home agent and mobile node to signal a mobile node that it should acquire a new home agent.

    Applicability. Take down could be done by rejecting requests or use of redundant HA.
    Operationally it might be useful for various reasons like errors or change in billing etc.
    Yes applicability is not defined enough. The general capability of notification message may be useful.
    Should we take this specific draft on? 6 say yes, 2-3 say they will work on it. 1 says no
    Should we take on the general idea? 20 say yes, 2-3 say they will work, 0 say no
    OK we go with the general idea.
    A new draft is needed, describing a general notification message. The WG will consider adoption of such a draft when it is available.

    11. Binding Identifier Extension for Mobile IPv4: Nobuo Ogashiwa


    Slides: http://mip4.org/ietf63/mip4-bid-extension.pdf

    This document specifies a new extension which carries a care-of address binding identifier, for the purpose of being able to couple tear-down and set-up of bindings when simultaneous bindings are used.


    This is dealing with complex issues. Some think that it enables complicated things to happen but we do not have to get into all of that. Some think that it does not do anything without defining how you set up the routing tables

    We tried to define how routing tables are set-up before but the WG and Chairs did not want to do this. You can also do this with a dereg followed by a reg. If not then you probably have other assumptions. Maybe we need to have a bof on multihomed MIP4...this is too immature.
    The chairs now are ok (after many year) to work on multihoming and MIP4? >laughs<
    yes :-)
    Should we take this draft on? 0 say yes, 3 say no
    Should we either here or in a BOF or in MONAMI6 work on multihoming on MIP4? 25 say yes, 0 say no. Will consult with Pete and IESG to figure out how to proceed.

    12. RADIUS attributes for Mobile-IP v4: Kent Leung


    Slides: http://mip4.org/ietf63/mip4-radius.pdf

    Kent gives a short update on the RADIUS attribute draft. No discussion.


    Radius Attributes for MIPv4
    MIP4 General Configuration Extension
    MIP4 / Mobike Connectivity
    MIP4 HA Switch Message
    MIP4 Binding Identifier Extension