Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, mipshop mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, mipshop chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6 ' <draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Mark Townsley and Jari Arkko. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-04.txt
Technical Summary This document specifies Enhanced Route Optimization, an amendment to route optimization in base Mobile IPv6. Enhanced Route Optimization secures a mobile node's home address against impersonation through an interface identifier that is cryptographically and verifiably bound  to the public component of the mobile node's public/private-key pair. Enhanced Route Optimization further allows mobile and correspondent nodes to resume bidirectional communications in parallel with pursuing a care-of address test. The latency of the home and care-of address tests are therefore eliminated in most cases. The use of cryptographically generated home addresses also mitigates the threat of impersonators that can interpose on the home address test and thereby facilitate longer binding lifetimes. This leads to increased security and a reduction in signaling overhead. Working Group Summary There were no adverse issues to report. Protocol Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is no information currently available on implementations or any vendors plans. The document was reviewed for the IESG by Mark Townsley. Vijay Devarapalli is the document proto Shepherd.