< draft-bo-behave-ref-req-00.txt		draft-bo-behave-ref-req-01.txt >
	BEHAVE Working Group B. Zhou		BEHAVE Working Group B. Zhou
	Internet-Draft H. Deng		Internet-Draft H. Deng
	Intended status: Informational China Mobile		Intended status: Informational China Mobile
	Expires: April 22, 2010 October 19, 2009		Expires: April 29, 2010 October 26, 2009
	Requirements for Referral in Mobile Network, input to GROBJ BoF		Requirements for Referral in Mobile Network, input to GROBJ BoF
	draft-bo-behave-ref-req-00		draft-bo-behave-ref-req-01
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 32 ¶
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2010.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
	publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).		publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶
	This document lays out the requirements that need to be met by the		This document lays out the requirements that need to be met by the
	potential referral modifications for the mobile network.		potential referral modifications for the mobile network.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Requirements of referral design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Requirements of referral design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. R1 Standard referral format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. R1 Standard referral format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. R2 Guarantee of NAT traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. R2 Simplify ALG during NAT traversal . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			2.3. R3 Network inspection consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Mobile operators are using referrals in their network to make		Mobile operators are using referrals in their network to make
	entities reachable straightforward. However, this simple approach is		entities reachable straightforward. However, this simple approach is
	failed by deployment of firewall and translator (like NAT) in the		failed by deployment of firewall and translator (like NAT) in the
	skipping to change at page 4, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 9 ¶
	1.1. Conventions used in this document		1.1. Conventions used in this document
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	2. Requirements of referral design		2. Requirements of referral design
	2.1. R1 Standard referral format		2.1. R1 Standard referral format
	The referral format need to be standardised. All kinds of		The referral formats need to be standardized. Applications can
	applications can understand the meaning of referral informed.		understand the meaning of referral informed, such as IP address,
			possibly protocol and port numbers. However, there is an open
			question whether this standard referral design should be use for new
			applications only, or including all existing applications.
	2.2. R2 Guarantee of NAT traversal		2.2. R2 Simplify ALG during NAT traversal
	The referral (entity A) need to inform entity B how to reach entity C		There are middle boxes, like firewalls and translators, exist in the
	with NAT traversal, if there is a NAT between B and C. This can		mobile network, which cause applications need to do translations,
	reduce the cost of NAT ALG.		especially ALG. The cost of translation functions included ALG is
			huge for the mobile operator in terms of implementation, performance.
			Standard referral could simplify ALG implementation during NAT
			traversal in the mobile network.
			2.3. R3 Network inspection consideration
			Operators sometimes need to inspect information or details during
			communication for administration motivations. If referral format is
			standardized, it is easy for operator to capture and investigate the
			communication information they required.
	3. Security Considerations		3. Security Considerations
	This document describes the motivation and requirements for a host		This document does not create any new security considerations.
	based translation solution and does not create any new security
	considerations.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	This document does not require any IANA actions.		This document does not require any IANA actions.
	5. Normative References		5. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
End of changes. 8 change blocks.
	13 lines changed or deleted		25 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/