Mobile IP Working Group B. Sarikaya Internet Draft Xiaofeng Xu Document:draft-sarikaya-seamoby-confmipv6hp-00.txt Vinod Kumar Choyi Category: Informational Andrew Krywaniuk Alcatel Claude Castelluccia Inria Rhone-Alpes September 2001 Conformity Statement of Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging to RFC 3154 draft-sarikaya-seamoby-confmipv6hp-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. This document is an individual submission for the mobile-ip Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted to the MOBILE-IP@STANDARDS.NORTELNETWORKS.COM mailing list. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract This document states the conformity of Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging (MIPv6HP) protocol I-D to RFC 3154 on Requirements and Functional Architecture for an IP Host Alerting Protocol. It is stated to which clauses MIPv6HP fully conforms and to which clauses close to full conformance is claimed. The clauses of RFC 3154 to which MIPv6HP does not conform are claried. Table of Contents Sarikaya, Xu, Choyi, Krywaniuk, Castelluccia 1 Confirmity Statement of Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging September 2001 Status of this Memo............................................1 Abstract.......................................................1 Table of Contents..............................................2 1. Introduction................................................2 2. Terms.......................................................2 3. Where full conformity is claimed............................3 4. Where conformity can be easily achieved.....................4 5. Where no conformity is claimed..............................4 6. References..................................................4 7 Authors' Addresses....................... . ................5 Sarikaya, Xu, Choyi, Krywaniuk, Castelluccia Expires March 2002 2 Confirmity Statement of Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging 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, The Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging protocol (MIPv6HP) [2] which defines an IP host alerting protocol. In this draft we discuss the clauses where MIPv6HP conforms to [1] and where the conformity can easily be achieved. Also this I-D states where the conformity to [1] was not 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 full conformity is claimed 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. MIPv6HP additionaly has provisions to support more dormant mode options. 4.5 on no mobile routers. 4.8 on support for mobility protocols. MIPv6HP supports MIPv6. It is integrated into MIPv6. 4.9 on dormant mode termination. 4.10 on network updates. MIPv6HP 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. MIPv6HP 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. MIPv6HP 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. MIPv6HP uses IPv6 and ICMPv6 datagrams. Every message has a corresponding reply and this is how reliability and robustness can be achieved. 4.18 on Flexibility of Paging Area Design. MIPv6HP allows maximum flexibility on the paging areas. The (L2 or L3) paging areas can even be dynamic. 4.19 Availability of Security Support and 4.24 through 4.27 on security. MIPv6HP has the security support as required. Section 6 in [2] gives a detailed explanation of the security support. Sarikaya, Xu, Choyi, Krywaniuk, Castelluccia Expires March 2002 3 Confirmity Statement of Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging September 2001 4.20 Through 4.22 on authentication support. [2] uses IPsec which provides the authentication. 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 PMAP which plays the role of DMA in the functional architecture of [1]. 4.14 on Robustness Against Failure of Network Elements. 4.17 on Flexibility of Administration. 4.23 on Paging Volume. Presently MIPv6HP 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. Clauses in Section 5 of [1] on functional architecture. PMAP in our protocol plays the role of DMA. It captures the packets for hosts in dormant mode upon registration. We have opted for colocating TA with DMA or PMAP, as is allowed. 5. Where no conformity is claimed Clause 4.4 on inactive mode. This mode is not supported. Clause 4.7 on the independence of mobility protocol. MIPv6HP is based on an extension of Mobile IPv6. 6. References 1 Kempf, J., et al. "Requirements and Functional Architecture for an IP Host Alerting Protocol", RFC 3154, August 2001. 2 Sarikaya, B., Xu, X., Choyi, V., Krywaniuk, A., Castelluccia, C., "Mobile IPv6 Hierachical Paging", draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp- 01.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 USA Tel. 1-650-617-2932 Email: pcalhoun@btormnetworks.com Sarikaya, Xu, Choyi, Krywaniuk, Castelluccia Expires March 2002 4 Confirmity Statement of Mobile IPv6 Hierarchical Paging September 2001 Questions about this memo can also be directed to: 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 Xiaofeng Xu Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team Alcatel USA M/S CTO2 1201 E. Campbell Rd. Richardson, TX 75081-1936 USA Email: xiaofeng.xu@alcatel.com Phone: (972) 996-2047 Fax: (972) 996 5174 Vinod Kumar Choyi Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team Alcatel USA M/S CTO2 1201 E. Campbell Rd. Richardson, TX 75081-1936 USA Email: vinod.choyi@alcatel.com Phone: (972) 996-2788 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 Claude Castelluccia INRIA Rhone-Alpes 655 avenue de l'Europe 38330 Montbonnot Saint-Martin FRANCE email: claude.castelluccia@inria.fr phone: +33 4 76 61 52 15 fax: +33 4 76 61 52 52 Sarikaya, Xu, Choyi, Krywaniuk, Castelluccia Expires March 2002 5