Comparative Analysis of Multi6 Proposals using a Locator/Identifier Split
draft-nagarajan-multi6-comparison-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ananth Nagarajan , Hannes Tschofenig | ||
| Last updated | 2004-10-19 | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
An IP address serves as a locator and an identifier in the classical Internet environment. This dual role of the IP address makes mobility and multihoming a challenging task. There have been various proposals to overcome this limitation, particularly from the Multi6 working group. This memo makes a comparative analysis of these proposals that support a locator/identifier split for multihoming in IPv6 from the security point of view. The purpose is also to provide a common framework under which future proposals can be compared and chosen for various security requirements.
Authors
Ananth Nagarajan
Hannes Tschofenig
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)