A Comparison of IP Mobility-Related Protocols
draft-thaler-mobility-comparison-02
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dave Thaler | ||
| Last updated | 2006-10-25 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Mobile IPv6 (MIP6), the Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol (SHIM6), and the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) all address various aspects of mobility and multi-homing in similar ways. This document gives a brief comparison of their features.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)