< draft-ietf-mobileip-appl-01.txt		draft-ietf-mobileip-appl-02.txt >
	Mobile IP Working Group J. Solomon		Mobile IP Working Group J. Solomon
	Internet Draft Motorola		Internet Draft Motorola
	expires June 29, 1996 December 29, 1995		expires November 24, 1996 May 24, 1996
	Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support		Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
	<draft-ietf-mobileip-appl-01.txt>		<draft-ietf-mobileip-appl-02.txt>
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working		This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
	documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,		documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
	and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute		and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts.		working documents as Internet-Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	skipping to change at page 2, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 42 ¶
	The Mobile IP protocol defines the following:		The Mobile IP protocol defines the following:
	- an authenticated registration procedure by which a mobile node		- an authenticated registration procedure by which a mobile node
	informs its home agent(s) of its care-of address(es);		informs its home agent(s) of its care-of address(es);
	- an extension to ICMP Router Discovery [RFC1256] which allows mobile		- an extension to ICMP Router Discovery [RFC1256] which allows mobile
	nodes to discover prospective home agents and foreign agents; and		nodes to discover prospective home agents and foreign agents; and
	- the rules for routing packets to and from mobile nodes, including		- the rules for routing packets to and from mobile nodes, including
	the specification of one mandatory tunneling mechanism ([MIP-		the specification of one mandatory tunneling mechanism ([MIP-IPinIP])
	IPinIP]) and several optional tunneling mechanisms ([MIP-MINENC]		and several optional tunneling mechanisms ([MIP-MINENC] and
	and [RFC1701]).		[RFC1701]).
	2. Applicability		2. Applicability
	Mobile IP is intended to solve node mobility across changes in IP		Mobile IP is intended to solve node mobility across changes in IP
	subnet. It is just as suitable for mobility across homogeneous media		subnet. It is just as suitable for mobility across homogeneous media
	as it is for mobility across heterogeneous media. That is, Mobile IP		as it is for mobility across heterogeneous media. That is, Mobile IP
	facilitates node movement from one Ethernet segment to another as		facilitates node movement from one Ethernet segment to another as
	well as it accommodates node movement from an Ethernet segment to a		well as it accommodates node movement from an Ethernet segment to a
	wireless LAN.		wireless LAN.
	One can think of Mobile IP as solving the "macro" mobility management		One can think of Mobile IP as solving the "macro" mobility management
	problem. It is less well suited for more "micro" mobility management		problem. It is less well suited for more "micro" mobility management
	applications -- for example, handoff amongst wireless transceivers,		applications -- for example, handoff amongst wireless transceivers,
	each of which covers only a very small geographic area. In this		each of which covers only a very small geographic area. In this
	later situation, link-layer mechanisms for link maintenance (i.e.		later situation, link-layer mechanisms for link maintenance (i.e.
	link-layer handoff) might offer faster convergence and less overhead		link-layer handoff) might offer faster convergence and less overhead
	than Mobile IP.		than Mobile IP.
			Mobile IP scales to handle a large number of mobile nodes in the
			Internet. Without route optimization as described in [MIP-OPTIM],
			however, the home agent is a potential load point when serving many
			mobile nodes. When home agents become overburdened, additional home
			agents can be added -- and even dynamically discovered by mobile
			nodes -- using mechanisms defined in the Mobile IP documents.
			Finally, it is noted that mobile nodes are assigned (home) IP
			addresses largely the same way in which stationary hosts are assigned
			long-term IP addresses; namely, by the authority who owns them.
			Properly applied, Mobile IP allows mobile nodes to communicate using
			only their home address regardless of their current location. Mobile
			IP, therefore, makes no attempt to solve the problems related to
			local or global, IP address, renumbering.
	3. Security		3. Security
	Mobile IP mandates the use of cryptographically strong authentication		Mobile IP mandates the use of cryptographically strong authentication
	for all registration messages exchanged between a mobile node and its		for all registration messages exchanged between a mobile node and its
	home agent. Optionally, strong authentication can be used between		home agent. Optionally, strong authentication can be used between
	foreign agents and mobile nodes or home agents. Replay protection is		foreign agents and mobile nodes or home agents. Replay protection is
	realized via one of two possible mechanisms -- timestamps or nonces.		realized via one of two possible mechanisms -- timestamps or nonces.
	Due to the unavailability of an Internet key management protocol,		Due to the unavailability of an Internet key management protocol,
	agent discovery messages are not required to be authenticated.		agent discovery messages are not required to be authenticated.
	All Mobile IP implementations are required to support, at a minimum,		All Mobile IP implementations are required to support, at a minimum,
	keyed MD5 authentication with manual key distribution. Other		keyed MD5 authentication with manual key distribution. Other
	authentication and key distribution algorithms may be supported.		authentication and key distribution algorithms may be supported.
	Mobile IP defines security mechanisms only for the registration		Mobile IP defines security mechanisms only for the registration
	protocol. Implementations requiring privacy and/or authentication of		protocol. Implementations requiring privacy and/or authentication of
	data packets sent to and from a mobile node should use the IP		data packets sent to and from a mobile node should use the IP security
	security protocols described in RFCs 1827 and 1826 for this purpose.		protocols described in RFCs 1827 and 1826 for this purpose.
	4. MIB		4. MIB
	At the time of publication of this Applicability Statement, several		At the time of publication of this Applicability Statement, a
	MIBs (one each for the mobile node, foreign agent, and home agent		Management Information Base (MIB) for Mobile IP was under development
	functions) are under development and are available as Internet		and available as an Internet Draft.
	Drafts.
	5. Implementations		5. Implementations
	Several implementations of Mobile IP are known to exist. The		Several implementations of Mobile IP are known to exist. The
	following list gives the origin and a contact for several such		following list gives the origin and a contact for several such
	implementations:		implementations:
	Organization: Contact:		Organization: Contact:
	CMU Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu>		CMU Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu>
	skipping to change at page 5, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 27 ¶
	[RFC1256] Deering, S. (editor), "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC		[RFC1256] Deering, S. (editor), "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC
	1256, September 1991.		1256, September 1991.
	[RFC1701] Hanks, S. et. al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)",		[RFC1701] Hanks, S. et. al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)",
	RFC 1701, October 1994.		RFC 1701, October 1994.
	[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Routing Protocol Standardization		[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Routing Protocol Standardization
	Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991.		Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991.
	[MIP-IPinIP] Perkins, C. (editor), "IP Encapsulation within IP",		[MIP-IPinIP] Perkins, C. (editor), "IP Encapsulation within IP",
	Internet Draft -- work in progress, October, 1995.		Internet Draft -- work in progress, May, 1996.
			[MIP-OPTIM] Johnson, D. and Perkins, C., "Route Optimization in Mobile
			IP", Internet Draft -- work in progress, February, 1996.
	[MIP-PROTO] Perkins, C. (editor), "IP Mobility Support", Internet		[MIP-PROTO] Perkins, C. (editor), "IP Mobility Support", Internet
	Draft -- work in progress, December, 1995.		Draft -- work in progress, April, 1996.
	[MIP-MINENC] Perkins, C. (editor), "Minimal Encapsulation within IP",		[MIP-MINENC] Perkins, C. (editor), "Minimal Encapsulation within IP",
	Internet Draft -- work in progress, July, 1995.		Internet Draft -- work in progress, October, 1995.
	9. Author's Address		9. Author's Address
	Questions about this memo can be directed to:		Questions about this memo can be directed to:
	Jim Solomon		Jim Solomon
	Motorola Inc.		Motorola Inc.
	1301 E. Algonquin Rd. - Rm 2240		1301 E. Algonquin Rd. - Rm 2240
	Schaumburg, IL 60196		Schaumburg, IL 60196
	Voice: +1-708-576-2753		Voice: +1-847-576-2753
	Fax: +1-708-576-3240		Fax: +1-847-576-3240
	E-mail: solomon@comm.mot.com		E-mail: solomon@comm.mot.com
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	16 lines changed or deleted		33 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/