idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1.a on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 628. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 605. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 612. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 618. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 386: '...01: The solution MUST be implemented a...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 388: '...02: The solution MUST set up a bi-dire...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 392: '... Internet MUST transit through th...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 394: '... R04: MNNs MUST be reachable at a...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 396: '...05: The solution MUST maintain continu...' (19 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: R06: The solution MUST not require modifications to any node other than MRs and HAs. == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: R09:1: The solution MUST not prevent the proper operation of Mobile IPv6 (i.e. the solution MUST allow MIPv6-enabled MNNs to operate either the CN, HA, or MN operations defined in [1]) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 21, 2005) is 6994 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '6' is defined on line 488, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '7' is defined on line 492, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3775 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3753 (ref. '3') == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-03 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology (ref. '4') == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues (ref. '5') == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models (ref. '6') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (ref. '7') (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '8' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '9' Summary: 15 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 NEMO Working Group T. Ernst 3 Internet-Draft WIDE at Keio University 4 Expires: August 25, 2005 February 21, 2005 6 Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements 7 draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-04 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions 12 of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 13 author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of 14 which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of 15 which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 16 RFC 3668. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as 21 Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2005. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 40 Abstract 42 Network mobility arises when a router connecting a network to the 43 Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the Internet 44 thereby causing the reachability of the said network to be changed in 45 relation to the fixed Internet topology. Such kind of network is 46 referred to as a mobile network. With appropriate mechanisms, 47 sessions established between nodes in the mobile network and the 48 global Internet can be maintained after the mobile router changes its 49 point of attachment. This document outlines the goals expected from 50 network mobility support and defines the requirements that must be 51 met by the NEMO Basic Support solution. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. NEMO Working Group Objectives and Methodology . . . . . . . 4 59 3. NEMO Support Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.1 Migration Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2 Performance Transparency and Seamless Mobility . . . . . . 5 62 3.3 Network Mobility Support Transparency . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.4 Operational Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 3.5 Arbitrary Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 3.6 Local Mobility and Global Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 3.7 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 3.8 Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 3.9 Secure Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 3.10 Location Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 3.11 IPv4 and NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 4. NEMO Basic Support One-Liner Requirements . . . . . . . . . 8 74 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 A. Change Log From Earlier Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 A.1 Changes between version -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 A.2 Changes between version -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 A.3 Changes Between Version -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 A.4 Changes Between Version -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 14 88 1. Introduction 90 Network mobility support is concerned with managing the mobility of 91 an entire network, viewed as a single unit, which changes its point 92 of attachment to the Internet and thus its reachability in the 93 Internet topology. Such a network is referred to as a mobile network 94 and includes one or more mobile routers (MRs) which connect it to the 95 global Internet. Nodes behind the MR(s) (MNNs) are both fixed (LFNs) 96 and mobile (VMNs or LMNs). In most cases, the internal structure of 97 the mobile network will be relatively stable (no dynamic change of 98 the topology), but this is not always true. 100 Cases of mobile networks include, for instance: 102 o Networks attached to people (Personal Area Networks or PANs): a 103 cell-phone with one cellular interface and one Bluetooth interface 104 together with a Bluetooth-enabled PDA constitute a very simple 105 instance of a mobile network. The cell-phone is the mobile router 106 while the PDA is used for web browsing or runs a personal web 107 server. 109 o Networks of sensors and computers deployed in vehicles: vehicles 110 are increasingly embedded with a number of processing units for 111 safety and ease of driving reasons, as advocated by ITS 112 (Intelligent Transportation Systems) applications ([9], [8]). 114 o Access networks deployed in public transportation (buses, trains, 115 taxis, aircrafts): they provide Internet access to IP devices 116 carried by passengers: laptop, camera, mobile phone: host mobility 117 within network mobility or PANs: network mobility within network 118 mobility, i.e. nested mobility (see [4] for the definition of 119 nested mobility). 121 o Ad-hoc networks connected to the Internet via an MR: for instance 122 students in a train that need both to set up an ad-hoc network 123 among themselves, and get Internet connectivity through the MR 124 connecting the train to the Internet. 126 Mobility of networks does not cause MNNs to change their own physical 127 point of attachment; however they do change their topological 128 location with respect to the global Internet. If network mobility is 129 not explicitly supported by some mechanisms, the mobility of the MR 130 results in MNNs losing Internet access and breaking ongoing sessions 131 between arbitrary correspondent node (CNs) in the global Internet and 132 those MNNs located within the mobile network. In addition, the 133 communication path between MNNs and correspondent nodes becomes 134 sub-optimal, and multiple levels of mobility will cause extremely 135 sub-optimal routing. 137 Mobility-related terms used in this document are defined in [3], 138 whereas terms specifically pertaining to network mobility are defined 139 in [4]. This document is structured as follows: in Section 2 we 140 define the rough objectives and methodology of the NEMO working group 141 to handle network mobility issues and we emphasize the stepwise 142 approach the working group has decided to follow. A number of 143 desirable design goals are listed in Section 3. Those design goals 144 then serve as guidelines to define the requirements listed in 145 Section 4 for basic network mobility support [2]. 147 2. NEMO Working Group Objectives and Methodology 149 The mechanisms required for handling network mobility issues were 150 lacking within the IETF standards when the NEMO working group was set 151 up at the IETF. At that time, work conducted on mobility support 152 (particularly in the Mobile IP working group) was to provide 153 continuous Internet connectivity and optimal routing to mobile hosts 154 only (host mobility support). Such mechanisms speficied in Mobile 155 IPv6 [1] are unable to support network mobility. The NEMO working 156 group has therefore been set up to deal with issues specific to 157 network mobility. 159 The primary objective of the NEMO work is to specify a solution which 160 allows mobile network nodes (MNNs) to remain connected to the 161 Internet and continuously reachable at all times while the mobile 162 router seving the mobile network changes its point of attachment. 163 The secondary goals of the work is to investigate the effects of 164 network mobility on various aspects of internet communication such as 165 routing protocol changes, implications of real-time traffic and fast 166 handovers, and optimizations. This should support the primary goal 167 of reachability for mobile network nodes. Security is an important 168 consideration too, and efforts should be made to use existing 169 security solutions if they are appropriate. Although a well-designed 170 solution may include security inherent in other protocols, mobile 171 networks also introduce new challenges. 173 To complete these tasks, the NEMO working group has decided to take a 174 stepwise approach. The steps in this approach include standardizing 175 a basic solution to preserve session continuity (NEMO Basic Support), 176 and studying the possible approaches and issues with providing more 177 optimal routing with potentially nested mobile networks (NEMO 178 Extended Support). However, the working group is not chartered to 179 actually standardize a solution for extgended support at this point 180 in time. If deemed necessary, the working group will be rechartered 181 based on the conclusions of the discussions. 183 For NEMO Basic Support, the working group will assume that none of 184 the nodes behind the MR will be aware of the network's mobility; 185 thus, the network's movement needs to be completely transparent to 186 the nodes inside the mobile network. This assumption accommodates 187 nodes inside the network that are not generally aware of mobility. 189 The efforts of the Mobile IP working group have resulted in the 190 Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 protocols, which have already solved the 191 issue of host mobility support. Since challenges to enabling mobile 192 networks are vastly reduced by this work, basic network mobility 193 support will adopt the methods for host mobility support used in 194 Mobile IP, and extend them in the simplest way possible to achieve 195 its goals. The basic support solution, now defined in [2] following 196 the requirements stated in Section 4 of the present document, is for 197 each MR to have a Home Agent, and use bi-directional tunneling 198 between the MR and HA to preserve session continuity while the MR 199 moves. The MR will acquire a care-of address at its attachment point 200 much like what is done for mobile nodes (MN), using Mobile IP. This 201 approach allows nested mobile networks, since each MR will appear to 202 its attachment point as a single node. 204 3. NEMO Support Design Goals 206 This section details the fundamental design goals the solutions will 207 intend to achieve. Those design goals serve to define the issues and 208 to impose a list of requirements for forthcoming solutions. Actual 209 requirements for NEMO Basic Support are in Section 4; NEMO Extended 210 Support is not yet considered at the time of this writing. 212 3.1 Migration Transparency 214 Permanent connectivity to the Internet has to be provided to all 215 MNNs, since continuous sessions are expected to be maintained as the 216 mobile router changes its point of attachment. For maintaining those 217 sessions, MNNs are expected to be reachable via their permanent IP 218 addresses. 220 3.2 Performance Transparency and Seamless Mobility 222 NEMO support is expected to be provided with limited signaling 223 overhead and to minimize the impact of handovers on applications, in 224 terms of packet loss or delay. However, although variable delays of 225 transmission and losses between MNNs and their respective CNs could 226 be perceived as the network is displaced, it would not be considered 227 a lack of performance transparency. 229 3.3 Network Mobility Support Transparency 231 MNNs behind the MR(s) do not change their own physical point of 232 attachment as a result of the mobile network's displacement in the 233 Internet topology. Consequently, NEMO support is expected to be 234 performed only be the MR(s). Specific support functions on any other 235 node than the MR(s) would better be avoided. 237 3.4 Operational Transparency 239 NEMO support is to be implemented at the level of IP layer. It is 240 expected to be transparent to upper layers so that any upper layer 241 protocol can run unchanged on top of an IP layer extended with NEMO 242 support. 244 3.5 Arbitrary Configurations 246 The formation of a mobile network can occur in various levels of 247 complexity. In the simplest case, a mobile network contains just a 248 mobile router and a host. In the most complicated case, a mobile 249 network is multihomed and is itself a multi-level aggregation of 250 mobile networks with collectively thousands of mobile routers and 251 hosts. While the list of potential configurations of mobile networks 252 cannot be limited, at least the following ones are desirable: 254 o Mobile networks of any size, ranging from a sole subnet with a few 255 IP devices to a collection of subnets with a large number of IP 256 devices. 258 o Nodes that change their point of attachment within the mobile 259 network. 261 o Foreign mobile nodes that attach to the mobile network. 263 o Multihomed mobile network: either when a single MR has multiple 264 attachments to the internet, or when the mobile network is 265 attached to the Internet by means of multiple MRs (see definition 266 in [4] and the analysis in [5]). 268 o Nested mobile networks (mobile networks attaching to other mobile 269 networks (see definition in [4]). Although the complexity 270 requirements of those nested networks is not clear, it is 271 desirable to support arbitrary levels of recursive networks. The 272 solution should only impose restrictions on nesting (e.g. path 273 MTU) when this is impractical and protocol concerns preclude such 274 support. 276 o Distinct mobility frequencies (see mobility factor in [3]). 278 o Distinct access media. 280 In order to keep complexity minimal, transit networks are excluded 281 from this list. A transit network is one in which data would be 282 forwarded between two endpoints outside of the network, so that the 283 network itself simply serves as a transitional conduit for packet 284 forwarding. A stub network (leaf network), on the other hand, does 285 not serve as a data forwarding path. Data on a stub network is 286 either sent by or addressed to a node located within that network. 288 3.6 Local Mobility and Global Mobility 290 Mobile networks and mobile nodes owned by different administrative 291 entities are expected to be displaced within a domain boundary or 292 between domain boundaries. Multihoming, vertical and horizontal 293 handoffs, and access control mechanisms are desirable to achieve this 294 goal. Such mobility is not expected to be limited for any 295 consideration other than administrative and security policies. 297 3.7 Scalability 299 NEMO support signaling and processing is expected to scale to a 300 potentially large number of mobile networks irrespective of their 301 configuration, mobility frequency, size and number of CNs. 303 3.8 Backward Compatibility 305 NEMO support will have to co-exist with established IPv6 standards 306 and not interfer with them. Standards defined in other IETF working 307 groups have to be reused as much as possible and extended only if 308 deemed necessary. For instance, the following mechanisms defined by 309 other working groups are expected to function without modidication: 311 o Address allocation and configuration mechanisms. 313 o Host mobility support: mobile nodes and correspondent nodes, 314 either located within or outside the mobile network, are expected 315 to continue operating protocols defined by the Mobile IP working 316 group. This include mechanisms for host mobility support (Mobile 317 IPv6) and seamless mobility (FMIPv6). 319 o Multicast support intended for MNNs is expected to be maintained 320 while the mobile router changes its point of attachment. 322 o Access control protocols and mechanisms used by visiting mobile 323 hosts and routers to be authenticated and authorized, gaining 324 access to the Internet via the mobile network infrastructure 325 (MRs). 327 o Security protocols and mechanisms. 329 o Mechanisms performed by routers deployed in both the visited 330 networks and in mobile networks (routing protocols, Neighbor 331 Discovery, ICMP, Router Renumbering). 333 3.9 Secure Signaling 335 NEMO support will have to comply with the usual IETF security 336 policies and recommendations and is expected to have its specific 337 security issues fully addressed. In practice, all NEMO support 338 control messages transmitted in the network will have to be protected 339 with an acceptable level of security to prevent intruders to usurp 340 identities and forge data. Specifically, the following issues have 341 to be considered: 343 o Authentication of the sender to prevent identity usurpation. 345 o Authorization, to make sure the sender is granted permission to 346 perform the operation as indicated in the control message. 348 o Confidentiality of the data contained in the control message. 350 3.10 Location Privacy 352 Location privacy means to hide the actual location of MNNS to third 353 parties other than the HA are desired. It is not clear to which 354 extend this has to be enforced, since it is always possible to 355 determine the topological location by analysing IPv6 headers. It 356 would thus require some kind of encryption of the IPv6 header to 357 prevent third parties from monitoring IPv6 addresses between the MR 358 and the HA. On the other hand, it is at the very least desirable to 359 provide a means for MNNs to hide their real topological location to 360 their CNs. 362 3.11 IPv4 and NAT Traversal 364 IPv4 clouds and NAT are likely to co-exist with IPv6 for a long time, 365 so it is desirable to ensure mechanisms developed for NEMO will be 366 able to traverse such clouds. 368 4. NEMO Basic Support One-Liner Requirements 370 The NEMO WG is to specify a unified and unique "Network Mobility 371 Basic Support" solution, hereafter referred to as "the solution". 372 This solution is to allow all nodes in the mobile network to be 373 reachable via permanent IP addresses, as well as maintain ongoing 374 sessions as the MR changes its point of attachment to the Internet 375 topology. This is to be done by maintaining a bi-directional tunnel 376 between an MR and its Home Agent. 378 The NEMO Working Group, after some investigation of alternatives, has 379 decided to reuse the existing Mobile IPv6 [1] mechanisms for tunnel 380 management, or extend it if deemed necessary. 382 The list of requirements below has been imposed on the NEMO Basic 383 Support solution. The requirements have mostly been met by the 384 resulting specification which can now be found in [2]. 386 R01: The solution MUST be implemented at the IP layer level. 388 R02: The solution MUST set up a bi-directional tunnel between a 389 Mobile Router and its Home Agent (MRHA tunnel) 391 R03: All traffic exchanged between an MNN and a CN in the global 392 Internet MUST transit through the bi-directional MRHA tunnel. 394 R04: MNNs MUST be reachable at a permanent IP address and name. 396 R05: The solution MUST maintain continuous sessions (both unicast 397 and multicast) between MNNs and arbitrary CNs after IP handover of 398 (one of) the MR. 400 R06: The solution MUST not require modifications to any node other 401 than MRs and HAs. 403 R07: The solution MUST support fixed nodes, mobile hosts and 404 mobile routers in the mobile network. 406 R08: The solution MUST allow MIPv6-enabled MNNs to use a mobile 407 network link as either a home link or a foreign link. 409 R09: The solution MUST ensure backward compatibility with other 410 standards defined by the IETF. In particular, this includes: 412 R09:1: The solution MUST not prevent the proper operation of 413 Mobile IPv6 (i.e. the solution MUST allow MIPv6-enabled MNNs 414 to operate either the CN, HA, or MN operations defined in [1]) 416 R10: The solution MUST treat all the potential configurations the 417 same way (whatever the number of subnets, MNNs, nested levels of 418 MRs, egress interfaces) 420 R11: The solution MUST support at least 2 levels of nested mobile 421 networks, while, in principle, arbitrary levels of recursive 422 mobile networks SHOULD be supported. 424 R12: The solution MUST function for multihomed MRs and multihomed 425 mobile networks as defined in [4]. 427 R13: NEMO Support signaling over the bi-directional MUST be 428 minimized 430 R14: Signaling messages between the HA and the MR MUST be secured: 432 R14.1: The receiver MUST be able to authenticate the sender. 434 R14.2: The function performed by the sender MUST be authorized 435 for the content carried. 437 R14.3: Anti-replay MUST be provided. 439 R14.4: The signaling messages MAY be encrypted. 441 R15: The solution MUST ensure transparent continuation of routing 442 and management operations over the bi-directional tunnel (this 443 includes e.g. unicast and multicast routing protocols, router 444 renumbering, DHCPv6) 446 R16: When one egress interface fails, the solution MAY preserve 447 sessions established through another egress interface. 449 5. Acknowledgments 451 The material presented in this document takes most of its text from 452 discussions and previous documents submitted to the NEMO working 453 group. This includes initial contributions from Motorola, INRIA, 454 Ericsson and Nokia. We are particularly grateful to Hesham Soliman 455 (Ericsson) and the IETF ADs at the time (Erik Nordmark and Thomas 456 Narten) who greatly helped to set up the NEMO working group. We are 457 also grateful to all the following people whose comments highly 458 contributed to the present document: T.J. Kniveton (Nokia), 459 Alexandru Petrescu (Motorola), Christophe Janneteau (Motorola), 460 Pascal Thubert (Cisco), Hong-Yon Lach (Motorola), Mattias Petterson 461 (Ericsson) and all the others people who have expressed their 462 opinions on the NEMO mailing lists (formely known as MONET). Thierry 463 Ernst wishes to personally acknowledge his previous employers, INRIA, 464 and Motorola for their support and direction in bringing this topic 465 up to the IETF -- particularly Claude Castelluccia (INRIA) and 466 Hong-Yon Lach (Motorola). 468 6. References 470 [1] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in 471 IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 473 [2] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A. and P. Thubert, 474 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, 475 January 2005. 477 [3] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", 478 RFC 3753, June 2004. 480 [4] Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", 481 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-03, February 2005. 483 [5] Ng, C., Paik, E. and T. Ernst, "Analysis of Multihoming in 484 Network Mobility Support", 485 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02, February 486 2005. 488 [6] Thubert, P., Wakikawa, R. and V. Devarapalli, "NEMO Home Network 489 Models", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-01, 490 October 2004. 492 [7] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", 493 IETF RFC 2460, December 1998. 495 [8] Ernst, T. and K. Uehara, "Connecting Automobiles to the 496 Internet", Proceedings 3rd International Workshop on ITS 497 Telecommunications (ITST), November 2002. 499 [9] "CALM - Medium and Long Range, High Speed, Air Interfaces 500 parameters and protocols for broadcast, point to point, vehicle 501 to vehicle, and vehicle to point communication in the ITS sector 502 - Networking Protocol - Complementary Element", ISO Drat ISO/WD 503 21210, February 2005. 505 Author's Address 507 Thierry Ernst 508 WIDE at Keio University 509 Jun Murai Lab., Keio University. 510 K-square Town Campus, 1488-8 Ogura, Saiwa-Ku 511 Kawasaki, Kanagawa 212-0054 512 Japan 514 Phone: +81-44-580-1600 515 Fax: +81-44-580-1437 516 Email: ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp 517 URI: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/ 519 Appendix A. Change Log From Earlier Versions 521 The discussions behind the changes in the lattest versions of this 522 documents are reflected in the "issue" web page: 523 http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/nemo/ 525 A.1 Changes between version -03 and -04 527 - Issue B1: English brush up 529 - Issue B2: Added a reference to [9] and [8] when speaking about 530 usages. 532 - Issue B3: The following paragraph from section 1 was partly 533 removed; the remaining part was moved to section 2 and rephrased: 534 "The mechanisms required for handling such mobility issues are 535 currently lacking within the IETF standards. Traditional work 536 conducted on mobility support (particularly in the Mobile IP working 537 group) is to provide continuous Internet connectivity and optimal 538 routing to mobile hosts only (host mobility support) and are unable 539 to support network mobility. The NEMO working group has therefore 540 been set up to deal with issues specific to network mobility. The 541 purpose of this document is thus to detail the methodology that will 542 be followed by the NEMO working group, its goals, and to define 543 requirements for network mobility support." 545 - Issue B4: Effectively removed former requirements about "impact on 546 the routing fabric". 548 A.2 Changes between version -02 and -03 550 - Mostly cosmetic changes 552 - Merged section Terminology into Introduction 554 - Cross-references with other NEMO WG docs 556 - Changed the introducion of section Section 4 and added reference to 557 NEMO Basic Support's resulting specification. 559 A.3 Changes Between Version -01 and -02 561 - removed sub-items in R12 (sub-cases are contained into the 562 definition of multihoming) 564 - minor typos 566 - R15: Added "multicast" 567 - R14.4: SHOULD softened to MAY according to discussion at IETF56th 568 meeting. 570 - R17 moved to R09 and contains former R09 as a sub-case. 572 - R18: relaxed from "SHOULD" to may based on Vijay Devarapalli 573 comment (030718) 575 A.4 Changes Between Version -00 and -01 577 - title of documents: included the word "goals" 579 - entire document: some rewording 581 - section 4: changed title of section to "NEMO Design Goals". 583 - section 4: removed "MUST" and "MAY" 585 - section 4: more text about location privacy 587 - section 4: changed "Administration" paragraph to "Local and Global 588 Mobility". Text enhanced. 590 - section 5: R02: replace "between MR and MR's HA" with "an MR and 591 its HA" R11: specified at least 2 levels R12: replaced "support" with 592 "function" and add "multihomed MR" R13.x renumbered to R12.x since 593 part of R12 (editing mistake) R13 and R18: new requirements proposed 594 by editor and minor changes in the formulation of other Requirements 596 Intellectual Property Statement 598 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 599 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 600 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 601 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 602 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 603 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 604 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 605 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 607 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 608 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 609 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 610 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 611 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 612 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 614 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 615 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 616 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 617 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 618 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 620 Disclaimer of Validity 622 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 623 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 624 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 625 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 626 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 627 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 628 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 630 Copyright Statement 632 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 633 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 634 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 636 Acknowledgment 638 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 639 Internet Society.