Browse Prior Art Database

IPng Mobility Considerations (RFC1688)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002526D
Original Publication Date: 1994-Aug-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Document File: 9 page(s) / 12K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

W. Simpson: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1688: DOI

Abstract

This RFC specifies criteria related to mobility for consideration in design and selection of the Next Generation of IP. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 19% of the total text.

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...

Processing...
Loading...