idnits 2.17.1 draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-ps-01.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 on line 20. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 490. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 469. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 475. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 480. ** 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. 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 an Introduction section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 1.0 Introduction' ) ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. (A line matching the expected section header was found, but with an unexpected indentation: ' 5.0 Security Considerations' ) ** 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.) ** There are 272 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 10 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 17 has weird spacing: '... By submi...' == Line 31 has weird spacing: '... The list...' == Line 34 has weird spacing: '... The list ...' == Line 64 has weird spacing: '... recent devel...' == Line 69 has weird spacing: '... of globa...' == (6 more instances...) -- 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 440 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '2' on line 442 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '3' on line 444 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '4' on line 446 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '5' on line 448 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '6' on line 450 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '7' on line 453 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '8' on line 455 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '9' on line 457 looks like a reference Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 16 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 J. Kempf, 3 Editor 4 Internet Draft K. Leung 5 Document: draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-ps-01.txt P. Roberts 6 K. Nishida 7 G. Giaretta 8 M. Liebsch 10 Expires: July, 2006 January, 2006 12 Problem Statement for IP Local Mobility 13 (draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-ps-01.txt) 15 Status of this Memo 17 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 18 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been 19 or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be 20 disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force 23 (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also 24 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and 27 may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is 28 inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them 29 other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 Abstract 39 In this document, the well-known problem of localized mobility management 40 for IP link handover is given a fresh look. After a short discussion of the 41 problem and a couple of scenarios, the principal shortcomings of existing 42 solutions are discussed. 44 Table of Contents 46 1.0 Introduction.....................................................2 47 2.0 The Local Mobility Problem.......................................3 48 3.0 Scenarios for Localized Mobility Management......................6 49 4.0 Most Serious Problems with Existing Solutions....................6 50 5.0 Security Considerations..........................................8 51 6.0 Author Information...............................................8 52 7.0 Informative References...........................................9 53 8.0 IPR Statements...................................................9 54 9.0 Disclaimer of Validity..........................................10 55 10.0 Copyright Notice................................................10 57 1.0 Introduction 59 Localized mobility management has been the topic of much work in the IETF 60 for some time, and it may seem as if little remains to be said on the topic. 61 The experimental protocols developed from previous work, namely FMIPv6 [1] 62 and HMIPv6[2], involve host-based solutions that mimic to a greater or 63 lesser extent the approach taken by Mobile IPv6 [3] for global mobility 64 management. However, recent developments in the IETF and the WLAN 65 infrastructure market suggest that it may be time to take a fresh look at 66 localized mobility management. Firstly, new IETF work on global mobility 67 management protocols that are not Mobile IPv6, such as HIP [4] and Mobike 68 [5], suggests that future wireless IP nodes may support a more diverse set 69 of global mobility protocols. Secondly, the success in the WLAN 70 infrastructure market of WLAN switches, which perform localized mobility 71 management without any host stack involvement, suggests a possible design 72 paradigm that could be used to accommodate other global mobility management 73 options on the mobile node while reducing host stack software complexity and 74 expanding the range of mobile nodes that could be accommodated. 76 This document briefly describes the local mobility problem and a few 77 scenarios where localized mobility management would be desirable. Then, it 78 describes the two most serious problems with existing protocols: the 79 requirement for host stack support, and the complex security interactions 80 required between the mobile node and the access network. More detailed 81 requirements and gap analysis for existing protocols can be found in [6]. 83 1.1 Terminology 85 Mobility terminology in this draft follows that in RFC 3753 [7], with the 86 addition of some new and revised terminology given here: 88 IP Link 89 A set of routers, mobile nodes, and wireless access points that share 90 link broadcast capability or its functional equivalent. This definition 91 covers one or multiple access points under one or several access 92 routers. In the past, such a set has been called a subnet, but this 93 term is not strictly correct for IPv6, since multiple subnet prefixes 94 can be assigned to an IP link in IPv6. 96 Access Network (revised) 97 An Access Network consists of following three components: wireless or 98 other access points, access routers, access network gateways which form 99 the boundary to other networks and may shield other networks from the 100 specialized routing protocols (if any) run in the Access Network; and 101 (optionally) other internal access network routers which may also be 102 needed in some cases to achieve a specialized routing protocol. 104 Local Mobility (revised) 105 Local Mobility is mobility over a restricted area of the network 106 topology. Note that, although the area of network topology over which 107 the mobile node moves may be restricted, the actual geographic area 108 could be quite large, depending on the mapping between the network 109 topology and the wireless coverage area. 111 Localized Mobility Management 112 Localized Mobility Management is a generic term for protocols dealing 113 with IP mobility management confined within the access network. 114 Localized mobility management signaling is not routed outside the 115 access network, although a handover may trigger Global Mobility 116 Management signaling. Localized mobility management protocols exploit 117 the locality of movement by confining movement related changes to the 118 access network. 120 Global Mobility Protocol 121 A Global Mobility Protocol is a mobility protocol used by the mobile 122 node to change the global, end-to-end routing of packets when movement 123 causes a topology change and thus invalidates a global unicast address 124 on the local IP link currently in active use by the mobile node. The 125 Global Mobility Protocol allows the mobile node to maintain a mapping 126 between a permanent rendezvous or home address and a temporary care-of 127 address for rendezvous with nodes that want to initiate a connection, 128 and it may also provide direct routing through the rendezvous node 129 and/or optimized routing directly between correspondent nodes and the 130 local address. Typically, this protocol will be Mobile IPv6 [1] but it 131 could also be HIP [4] or Mobike [5] (Note: although Mobike is not 132 considered a mobility management protocol in general, for purposes of 133 this document, it will be so considered because it manages the address 134 map and routing between a fixed VPN endpoint address and a changing 135 local address). 137 Global Mobility Anchor Point 138 A node in the network where the mobile node has its fixed home address 139 that maintains the mapping between the home address and care-of address 140 for purposes of rendezvous and possibly traffic forwarding. For Mobile 141 IPv6 [1], this is the home agent. For HIP [4], this is the rendezvous 142 server. For Mobike [5], this is the VPN tunnel gateway in the home 143 network. 145 Intra-Link Mobility 146 Intra-Link Mobility is mobility between wireless access points within 147 an IP Link. Typically, this kind of mobility only involves Layer 2 148 mechanisms, so Intra-Link Mobility is often called Layer 2 mobility. No 149 IP link configuration is required upon movement since the link does not 150 change, but some IP signaling may be required for the mobile node to 151 confirm whether or not the change of wireless access point also 152 resulted in a change of IP link. If the IP link consists of a single 153 access point/router combination, then this type of mobility is 154 typically absent. See Figure 1. 156 2.0 The Local Mobility Problem 157 The local mobility problem is restricted to providing IP mobility management 158 for mobile nodes within an access network. An access network consists of a 159 group of access routers connected to wired or wireless access points on the 160 downlink side and a wired IP core through one or more aggregation routers on 161 the side that is routed toward the border router and the Internet. The 162 aggregation routers function as an access network gateway, although in this 163 case, there is no specialized routing protocol and the routers function as a 164 standard IP routed network. This is illustrated in Figure 1, where the 165 aggregation routers are designated as "AggR". Transitions between service 166 providers in separate autonomous systems or across broader topological 167 "boundaries" within the same service provider are excluded. 169 Figure 1 depicts the scope of local mobility in comparison to global 170 mobility. The Aggregation Routers AggR A1 and B1 are gateways to the access 171 network. The Access Routers AR A1 and A2 are in Access Network A, B1 is in 172 Access Network B. Note that it is possible to have additional aggregation 173 routers between AggR A1 and AggR B1 and the access routers if the access 174 network is large. Access Points AP A1 through A3 are in Access Network A, B1 175 and B2 are in Access Network B. Other Aggregation Routers, Access Routers, 176 and Access Points are also possible. The figure implies a star topology for 177 the access network deployment, and the star topology is the primary one of 178 interest since it is quite common, but the problems discussed here are 179 equally relevant to ring or mesh topologies in which access routers are 180 directly connected through some part of the network. 182 Access Network A Access Network B 184 +-------+ +-------+ 185 |AggR A1| (other AggRs) |AggR B1| (other AggRs) 186 +-------+ +-------+ 187 @ @ @ 188 @ @ @ 189 @ @ @ 190 @ @ @ 191 @ @ @ 192 @ @ @ 193 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 194 |AR A1| |AR A2|(other ARs) |AR B1| (other ARs) 195 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 196 * * * 197 * * * * * 198 * * * * * 199 * * * * * 200 * * * * * 201 * * * (other APs) * * (other APs) 202 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ 203 /AP\ /AP\ /AP\ /AP\ /AP\ 204 / A1 \ / A2 \ / A3 \ / B1 \ / B2 \ 205 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 207 +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ 208 |MN|----->|MN|----->|MN|-------->|MN| 209 +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ 210 Intra-link Local Global 211 Mobility Mobility Mobility 213 Figure 1. Scope of Local and Global Mobility Management 215 As shown in the figure, a global mobility protocol is necessary when a 216 mobile node (MN) moves between two access networks. Exactly what the scope 217 of the access networks is depends on deployment considerations. Mobility 218 between two access points under the same access router constitutes Intra- 219 link mobility, and is typically handled by Layer 2 mobility protocols (if 220 there is only one access point/cell per access router, then intra-link 221 mobility may be lacking). Between these two lies local mobility. Local 222 mobility occurs when a mobile node moves between two access points connected 223 to two different access routers. 225 Global mobility protocols allow a mobile node to maintain reachability when 226 a change between access routers occurs, by updating the address mapping 227 between the home address and care-of address at the global mobility anchor 228 point, or even end to end by changing the care-of address directly at the 229 correspondent node. A global mobility management protocol can therefore be 230 used between access routers for handling local mobility. However, there are 231 three well-known problems involved in using a global mobility protocols for 232 every transition between access routers. Briefly, they are: 234 1) Update latency. If the global mobility anchor point and/or 235 correspondent node (for route optimized traffic) is at some distance 236 from the mobile node's access network, the global mobility update may 237 require a considerable amount of time, during which time packets 238 continue to be routed to the old care-of address and are essentially 239 dropped. 240 2) Signaling overhead. The amount of signaling required when a mobile 241 node moves from one IP link to another can be quite extensive, 242 including all the signaling required to configure an IP address on the 243 new link and global mobility protocol signaling back into the network 244 for changing the home to care-of address mapping. The signaling volume 245 may negatively impact wireless bandwidth usage and real time service 246 performance. 247 3) Location privacy. The change in care-of address as the mobile node 248 moves exposes the mobile node's topological location to correspondents 249 and potentially to eavesdroppers. An attacker that can assemble a 250 mapping between subnet prefixes in the mobile node's access network 251 and geographical locations can determine exactly where the mobile node 252 is located. This can expose the mobile node's user to threats on their 253 location privacy. 255 These problems suggest that a protocol to localize the management of 256 topologically small movements is preferable to using a global mobility 257 management protocol on each IP link move. In addition to these problems, 258 localized mobility management can provide a measure of local control, so 259 mobility management can be tuned for specialized local conditions. Note also 260 that if localized mobility management is provided, it is not strictly 261 required for a mobile node to support a global mobility management protocol 262 since movement within a restricted IP access network can still be 263 accommodated. Without such support, however, a mobile node experiences a 264 disruption in its traffic when it moves beyond the border of the localized 265 mobility management domain. 267 3.0 Scenarios for Localized Mobility Management 269 There are a variety of scenarios in which localized mobility management is 270 attractive. 272 3.1 Large Campus with Diverse Physical Interconnectivity 274 One scenario where localized mobility management would be attractive is for 275 a campus wireless LAN deployment in which parts of the campus are connected 276 by links that are other than 802.3 or in which it is not possible to cover 277 the campus by one VLAN. In this case, the campus is divided into separate IP 278 links each served by one or more access routers. This kind of deployment is 279 served today by wireless LAN switches that co-ordinate IP mobility between 280 them, effectively providing localized mobility management at the link layer. 281 Since the protocols are proprietary and not interoperable, any deployments 282 that require IP mobility necessarily require switches from the same vendor. 284 3.2 Advanced Cellular Network 286 Next generation cellular protocols such as 802.16e [8] and Super 3G/3.9G [9] 287 have the potential to run IP deeper into the access network than the current 288 3G cellular protocols, similar to today's WLAN networks. This means that the 289 access network can become a routed IP network. Interoperable localized 290 mobility management can unify local mobility across a diverse set of 291 wireless protocols all served by IP, including advanced cellular, WLAN, and 292 personal area wireless technologies such as UWB and Bluetooth. Localized 293 mobility management at the IP layer does not replace Layer 2 mobility (where 294 available) but rather complements it. A standardized, interoperable 295 localized mobility management protocol for IP can remove the dependence on 296 IP layer localized mobility protocols that are specialized to specific link 297 technologies or proprietary, which is the situation with today's 3G 298 protocols. The expected benefit is a reduction in maintenance cost and 299 deployment complexity. See [6] for a more detailed discussion of the 300 requirements for localized mobility management. 302 3.3 Picocellular Network with Small But Node-Dense IP Links 304 Future radio link protocols at very high frequencies may be constrained to 305 very short, line of sight operation. Even some existing protocols, such as 306 UWB and Bluetooth, are designed for low power, short range operation. For 307 such protocols, extremely small picocells become more practical. Although 308 picocells do not necessarily imply "pico IP links", wireless sensors and 309 other advanced applications may end up making such picocellular type 310 networks node-dense, requiring subnets that cover small geographical areas, 311 such as a single room. The ability to aggregate many subnets under a 312 localized mobility management scheme can help reduce the amount of IP 313 signaling required on IP link movement. 315 4.0 Problems with Existing Solutions 316 Existing solutions for localized mobility management fall into three 317 classes: 319 1) Interoperable IP level protocols that require changes to the mobile node's 320 IP stack and handle localized mobility management as a service provided to 321 the host by the access network, 322 2) Link specific or proprietary protocols that handle localized mobility for 323 any mobile node but only for a specific type of link layer, namely 802.11 324 running on an 802.3 wired network backhaul. 325 3) Use of a standard IGP such as OSPF or IS-IS to distribute host routes, and 326 updating the host routes when the mobile node moves. 328 For Solution 1, the following are specific problems: 330 1) The host stack software requirement limits broad usage even if the 331 modifications are small. The success of WLAN switches indicates that 332 network operators and users prefer no host stack software modifications. 333 This preference is likely to be independent of the lack of widespread 334 Mobile IPv4 deployment, since it is much easier to deploy and use the 335 network. 336 2) Future mobile nodes may choose other global mobility management 337 protocols, such as HIP or Mobike. The existing localized mobility 338 management solutions all depend on Mobile IP or derivatives. 339 3) Existing localized mobility management solutions do not support both IPv4 340 and IPv6. 341 4) Security for the existing localized mobility management solutions 342 requires complex security associations with network elements for no 343 improvement in security over what is available if localized mobility 344 management is not used. In addition to the additional signaling required 345 to set up these security associations, provisioning a mobile node with 346 credentials for roaming to all the access networks where the mobile node 347 might end up may prove difficult, acting as a barrier to deployment. 349 Solution 2 has the following problems: 351 1) Existing solutions only support WLAN networks with Ethernet backhaul and 352 therefore are not available for advanced cellular networks or 353 picocellular protocols, or other types of wired backhaul. 354 2) Each WLAN switch vendor has its own proprietary protocol that does not 355 interoperate with other vendor's equipment. 356 3) Because the solutions are based on layer 2 routing, they may not scale up 357 to a metropolitan area, or local province. 359 Solution 3 has the following problems: 361 1) Each router in the localized mobility management domain is required to 362 maintain a host route table and to search the host route table for 363 routing each packet, limiting the memory and processing power 364 scalability. 365 2) After handover, until host routes propagate back along the current path 366 of traffic to the localized mobility management domain border, traffic 367 packets for the mobile node are sent to the old router, causing the 368 packets to drop. Since IGPs typically propagate routing updates through 369 flooding, the delay in host route propagation also limits the topological 370 span of the localized mobility management domain. 371 3) Rapid movement by the mobile node faster than the rate at which flooding 372 can propagate host routes could lead to a cascading series of host route 373 messages that never stabilize. 375 Having an interoperable, standardized localized mobility management protocol 376 that is scalable to topologically large networks, but requires no host stack 377 involvement for localized mobility management is a highly desirable 378 solution. 380 5.0 Security Considerations 382 Localized mobility management has certain security considerations, one of 383 which - need for access network to mobile node security - was touched on in 384 this document. Existing localized mobility management solutions increase the 385 need for mobile node to access network signaling and provisioning of the 386 mobile node with credentials without increasing the security beyond what is 387 available if no localized mobility management solution is used. A more 388 complete discussion of the security requirements for localized mobility 389 management can be found in [6]. 391 6.0 Author Information 393 James Kempf 394 DoCoMo USA Labs 395 181 Metro Drive, Suite 300 396 San Jose, CA 95110 397 USA 398 Phone: +1 408 451 4711 399 Email: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com 401 Kent Leung 402 Cisco Systems, Inc. 403 170 West Tasman Drive 404 San Jose, CA 95134 405 USA 406 EMail: kleung@cisco.com 408 Phil Roberts 409 Motorola Labs 410 Schaumberg, IL 411 USA 412 Email: phil.roberts@motorola.com 414 Katsutoshi Nishida 415 NTT DoCoMo Inc. 416 3-5 Hikarino-oka, Yokosuka-shi 417 Kanagawa, 418 Japan 419 Phone: +81 46 840 3545 420 Email: nishidak@nttdocomo.co.jp 422 Gerardo Giaretta 423 Telecom Italia Lab 424 via G. Reiss Romoli, 274 425 10148 Torino 426 Italy 427 Phone: +39 011 2286904 428 Email: gerardo.giaretta@tilab.com 430 Marco Liebsch 431 NEC Network Laboratories 432 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36 433 69115 Heidelberg 434 Germany 435 Phone: +49 6221-90511-46 436 Email: marco.liebsch@ccrle.nec.de 438 7.0 Informative References 440 [1] Koodli, R., editor, "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6," RFC 4068, July, 441 2005. 442 [2] Soliman, H., editor, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management," 443 RFC 4140, August, 2005. 444 [3] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and Arkko, J., "Mobility Support in IPv6," 445 RFC 3775. 446 [4] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and Henderson, T., "Host 447 Identity Protocol", Internet Draft, work in progress. 448 [5] Kivinen, T., and Tschopfening, H., "Design of the MOBIKE Protocol", 449 Internet Draft, work in progress. 450 [6] Kempf, J., Leung, K., Roberts, P., Giaretta, G., Liebsch, M., and 451 Nishita, K.., "Requirements and Gap Analysis for Localized Mobility 452 Management", Internet Draft, work in progress. 453 [7] Manner, J., and Kojo, M., "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC 3753, 454 June, 2004. 455 [8] IEEE, "Air Interface for Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems", 456 802.16e, 2005. 457 [9] 3GPP, "3GPP System Architecture Evolution: Report on Technical Options 458 and Conclusions", TR 23.882, 2005, http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html- 459 info/23882.htm. 461 8.0 IPR Statements 463 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 464 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 465 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this 466 document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might 467 not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent 468 effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with 469 respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 471 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of 472 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a 473 general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by 474 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF 475 on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 477 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 478 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that 479 may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. 480 Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 482 9.0 Disclaimer of Validity 484 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS 485 IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS 486 SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 487 TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT 488 LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT 489 INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 490 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 492 10.0 Copyright Notice 494 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the 495 rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set 496 forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 498 11.0 Changes in 01 (remove before publication) 500 - Added "revised" to those definitions in Section 1.1 that are revised 501 from RFC 3753. 503 - Changed "mobile host" to "mobile node" where the wireless device was 504 meant, to avoid confusion about whether mobile routers are supported. 506 - Added discussion in Section 4 of problems involving using a standard 507 IGP for host route distribution.