IPng Mobility Considerations
RFC 1688

Document Type RFC - Informational (August 1994; No errata)
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream Legacy
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Legacy state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 1688 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         W. Simpson
Request for Comments: 1688                                    Daydreamer
Category: Informational                                      August 1994

                      IPng Mobility Considerations

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This document was submitted to the IPng Area in response to RFC 1550.
   Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by the IPng
   Area of any ideas expressed within.  Comments should be submitted to
   the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list.  This RFC specifies
   criteria related to mobility for consideration in design and
   selection of the Next Generation of IP.

Table of Contents

   1.     Introduction ..........................................    2
   2.     Addressing ............................................    2
      2.1       Ownership .......................................    2
      2.2       Topology ........................................    3
      2.3       Manufacturer ....................................    3
      2.4       Numbering .......................................    3
      2.5       Configuration ...................................    3
   3.     Communication .........................................    3
      3.1       Topological Changes .............................    4
      3.2       Routing Updates .................................    4
      3.3       Path Optimization ...............................    5
      3.4       At Home .........................................    5
      3.5       Away From Home ..................................    5
   4.     Security ..............................................    5
      4.1       Authentication ..................................    5
      4.2       Anonymity .......................................    6
      4.3       Location Privacy ................................    6
      4.4       Content Privacy .................................    6
   5.     Bandwidth .............................................    6
      5.1       Administrative Messages .........................    7
      5.2       Response Time ...................................    7
      5.3       Header Prediction ...............................    8
   6.     Processing ............................................    8
      6.1       Fixed Location ..................................    8

Simpson                                                         [Page 1]
RFC 1688                     IPng Mobility                   August 1994

      6.2       Simple Fields ...................................    9
      6.3       Simple Tests ....................................    9
      6.4       Type, Length, Value .............................    9
   Acknowledgements .............................................    9
   Security Considerations ......................................    9
   Author's Address .............................................    9

1.  Introduction

   Current versions of the Internet Protocol make an implicit assumption
   that a node's point of attachment remains fixed.  Datagrams are sent
   to a node based on the location information contained in the node's
   IP address.

   If a node moves while keeping its IP address unchanged, its IP
   network number will not reflect its new point of attachment.  The
   routing protocols will not be able to route datagrams to it
   correctly.

   A number of considerations arise for routing these datagrams to a
   Mobile Node.

2.  Addressing

   Each Mobile Node must have at least one Home-Address which identifies
   it to other nodes.  This Home-Address must be globally unique.

2.1.  Ownership

   The presence of ownership information in the Home-Address would be
   beneficial.  A Mobile Node will be assigned a Home-Address by the
   organization that owns the machine, and will be able to use that
   Home-Address regardless of the current point of attachment.

   The ownership information must be organized in such a fashion to
   facilitate "inverse" lookup in the Domain Name Service, and other
   future services.

   Ownership information could be used by other nodes to ascertain the
   current topological location of the Mobile Node.

   Ownership information could also be used for generation of accounting
   records.

Simpson                                                         [Page 2]
RFC 1688                     IPng Mobility                   August 1994

2.2.  Topology

   There is no requirement that the Home-Address contain topological
   information.  Indeed, by the very nature of mobility, any such
   topological information is irrelevant.

   Topological information in the Home-Address must not hinder mobility,
   whether by prevention of relocation, or by wasting bandwidth or
Show full document text