Seamoby Working Group B. Sarikaya Internet Draft S. Gurivireddy Document:draft-guri-seamoby-conflahap-00.txt A. Krywaniuk Category: Standards track Alcatel September 2001 Conformity Statement of Layer-2 aided mobility independent dormant host alerting protocol to RFC 3154 draft-guri-seamoby-conflahap-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract This document states the conformity of Layer-2 aided mobility independent dormant host alerting protocol I-D to RFC 3154 on Requirements and Functional Architecture for an IP Host Alerting Protocol. It is stated to which clauses lahap fully conforms and to which clauses close to full conformance is claimed. Table of Contents Status of this Memo............................................1 Abstract.......................................................1 Table of Contents..............................................2 1. Introduction................................................2 2. Terms.......................................................2 3. Where we claim full conformity..............................3 4. Where conformity can be easily achieved.....................4 5. References..................................................4 Gurivireddy,Sarikaya, Krywaniuk 1 Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001 6 Authors' Addresses....................... . ................5 Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 2 Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001 1. Introduction RFC 3154 [1] states the requirements and attempts to define a functional architecture for an IP Host Alerting Protocol. The authors of this I-D have submitted an I-D, Layer-2 aided mobility independent dormant host alerting protocol [2] which defines an IP host alerting protocol. In this draft we discuss the clauses where lahap conforms to [1] and where the conformity can easily be achieved. There seems to be no clauses where the conformity to [1] could not be claimed. 2. Terms The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [3]. Please see [4] for definition of terms used in describing paging. In addition, [2] defined several terms. 3. Where we claim full conformity The clauses on security, in particular clauses in Section 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. 4.1 on power consumption by relying on L2 paging where available the need to establish L3 connection is eliminated. 4.3 on control of Broadcast/Multicast/Anycast. lahap additionaly has provisions to support more dormant mode options. 4.4. On Inactive mode: The protocol as support for inactive mode. Protocl detects as soon as host enters inactive mode and sends ICMP_HOST_UNREACHABLE message back to the node trying to connect to HOST. 4.5 on no mobile routers. 4.7 on independence of mobility protocols. Lahap is completely independent of any mobility protocol. 4.9 on dormant mode termination. 4.10 on network updates. Lahap efficiently supports the moving of the dormant hosts in paging areas. This is clearly explained in Section 3.1.1 of [2]. 4.11 on Efficient Utilization of L2. Lahap makes maximum use of L2 dormant mode support if available. 4.12 on Orthogonality of Paging Area and Subnets and 4.13 on future L3 paging support. Lahap allows both Layer 3 and Layer 2 paging areas. It defines protocol operation distinctively under L3 paging areas or under L2 paging areas to be used based on availability. 4.15 on Reliability of Packet Delivery and 4.16 on Robustness Against Message Loss. Lahap achieves reliability and robustness by acknowledging all the messages in the network layer. In appropriate scenarios, messages are retransmitted. Lahap uses IPv6 and ICMPv6 datagrams. Every message has a corresponding reply and this is how reliability and robustness can be achieved. Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 3 Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001 4.18 on Flexibility of Paging Area Design. Lahap allows maximum flexibility on the paging areas. The (L2 or L3) paging areas can even be dynamic. 4.19 Availability of Security Support : last section of the draft deals with security issues. Lahap has the security support as required. Section 6 in [2] gives a detailed explaination of the security support. 4.20 Through 4.22 on authentication support. [2] uses IPsec which provides the authentication. Clauses in Section 5 of [1] on functional architecture. We claim full conformance to Section 5. All the entities are used and the messaging structure is as in Section 5. 4. Where conformity can be easily achieved Clause 4.6 on multiple dormant modes. 4.2 on scalability. The dormant mode hosts state is only kept at DMA 4.14 on Robustness Against Failure of Network Elements. 4.17 on Flexibility of Administration. 4.23 on Paging Volume. Presently Lahap handles each paging request per host separately. If the volume is high it may help in handling several paging requests together. Future revisions of [2] will conform to this clause fully. 4.8 on support for mobility protocols. Lahap is not based on any mobility protocols. Hooks to a protocol that extends Mobile IPv6 with paging can easily be made. For example DMA can be collocated with the home agent of MIPv6. 5. References 1 Kempf, J., et al. "Requirements and Functional Architecture for an IP Host Alerting Protocol", RFC 3154, August 2001. 2 Gurivireddy, S., Sarikaya, B., Krywaniuk, A., " Layer-2 aided mobility independent dormant host alerting protocol", draft-guri- seamoby-lahap-00.txt, September 2001, work-in-progress. 3 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 7. Author's Addresses The working group can be contacted via the current chair: Pat R. Calhoun Black Storm Networks 250 Cambridge Avenue Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 4 Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001 USA Tel. 1-650-617-2932 Email: pcalhoun@btormnetworks.com Questions about this memo can also be directed to: Sridhar Gurivireddy, Network Strategic Group, Mobile Networking team Alcatel USA 1201 E.Campbell Rd. M/S CT02 Richardson, TX 75081-1536 USA E-mail: sridhar.gurivireddy@alcatel.com Phone: (972) 996.2048 Behcet Sarikaya Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team Alcatel USA M/S CTO2 1201 E. Campbell Rd. Richardson, TX 75081-1936 USA Email: behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com Phone: (972) 996-5075 Fax: (972) 996 5174 Andrew Krywaniuk Alcatel Networks Corporation 600 March Road Kanata, ON Canada, K2K 2E6 +1 (613) 784-4237 E-mail: andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 5