Document Action: 'Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements' to Informational RFC

[The IESG <[e-mail]>]

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements '
   <draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-06.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Network Mobility Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-06.txt

Technical Summary

   Network mobility arises when a router connecting a network to the
   Internet dynamically changes its point of attachment to the Internet
   thereby causing the reachability of the said network to be changed in
   relation to the fixed Internet topology.  Such kind of network is
   referred to as a mobile network.  With appropriate mechanisms,
   sessions established between nodes in the mobile network and the
   global Internet can be maintained after the mobile router changes its
   point of attachment.  This document outlines the goals expected from
   network mobility support and defines the requirements that must be
   met by the NEMO Basic Support solution.
 
Working Group Summary
 
  There has been significant review and discussion
  of these documents, and the consensus of the
  working group is solidly behind the documents.
 
Protocol Quality
 
  RFC 3963, NEMO Basic Support protocol was developed
  and published as an answer to these requirements.
  There are multiple implementations.

  This document has been reviewed by Jari Arkko for
  the IESG.

Note to RFC Editor
 
  In Section 3.7, s/modidication/modification/

  In Section 4, replace R10 with this:

    R10: The solution MUST be agnostic to the internal
    configuration. This means the solution will behave the
    same way if the NEMO is nested, comprises one or several
    subnets, comprises MNNs which are LFNs, VMNs, LFNs or a
    mixture of them.

  Add replace Section 5 with the following contents:

    Security consideration of the "NEMO Basic Support"
    solutions are addressed in RFC 3963.

    Section 3.9 of this document discusses the security
    goals for all forms of existing and forthcoming NEMO 
    solutions.

  Please change MUST, MAY, etc in Section 4 to lower case.

  Please add a NEW Section 3.12:

    3.12  Minimal Impact on Internet Routing

    Any NEMO solution(s) needs have minimal negative effect on the
    global Internet routing system. The solution must therefore limit both


    the amount of information that must be injected into Internet
routing,
    as well as the dynamic changes in the information that is injected
    into the global routing system.

    As one example of why this is necessary, consider the approach of
    advertising each mobile network's connectivity into BGP, and for
    every movement withdrawing old routes and injecting new routes.
    If there were tens of thousands of mobile networks each advertising
    and withdrawing routes, for example, at the speed that an airplane can


    move from one ground station to another, the potential effect on BGP
    could be very unfortunate. In this example the total amount of routing


    information advertised into BGP may be acceptable, but the dynamic
    instability of the information (ie, the number of changes over time)
    would be unacceptable.

  And finally, add a NEW requirement to the end of Section 4:

    R17: The solution should have a minimal impact on the
    global Internet routing system.


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce