Network Working Group Yuankui.zhao
Internet-Draft Shanghai Huawei Technology
Intended status: Standards Track Feb 25, 20067
Expires: Sep 5, 2007
MIP type decision in netlmm workgroup
draft-zhao-netlmm-miptype-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
Abstract
Currently, this comes from the policy associated with that mobile.
But a MS maybe has the MIP capability.We need a flag to know if a
MS need Proxy MIP capability.This document explains how we can
define a flag in dhcp option to state that a MS wish or doesn't
wish to have the Proxy MIP capability.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. A example :use DHCP protocol to inform the mip type of MS. . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
1. Introduction
Currently in some standards development organizations(SDO) some
simple IP terminal need to be implemented the MIP cability. That is
finished by network without the MS's mobility support. That is named
as PMIP(proxy MIP). But if all of the simple IP terminal should be
provided with the PMIP by PMIP-enabled network? Or if MIP-enabled
terminal can also have the PMIP support by PMIP-enabled network?
These requirements are needed to be defined.
This document defines a flag in dhcp option to indicate if a MS wish
to have the Proxy MIP support.
1.1. Terminology
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 BCP 14 RFC 2119
[STANDARDS].
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
2. Overview
Network decide a MS need the proxy MIP is triggered by
some entry network progress, such as PPP,DHCP,ND etc.
Currently, PPP has a option to indicate the mobile
capability of a MS(simple IP or mobile IP). But others
didn't have.If we think it right, we should do this.
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
3. Implementation
When a MS entry into network,it utilizes some protocols to acquire
initial network argument.Those protocols maybe PPP/DHCP/ND etc.
We can indicate the capability of the mobility preference of this MS.
Then network can decide if need to do the proxy MIP for this MS.
Currently, PPP has defined this option.
How about DHCP / ND and others? also need ,right?
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
4. A example :use DHCP protocol to inform the mip type of MS
In DHCP protocol, we definedd a new option to indicate that if a MS
need the proxy MIP capability.
This flag should be used in both of stateless DHCP protocol or
stateful DHCP protocol.
This flag should be used in both of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 protocols.
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
5. Security Considerations
Secure guarante1 can utilize the detail protocol defination.
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
6. Conclusions
We need let MS has the ability to inform network about it's capability
in the selection of mobility mechnism.
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
7. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the discussions and feedback from
WiMAX Forum NWG attendees.
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[STANDARDS]
"Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997,
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119>.
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006
Authors' Addresses
Yuankui Zhao
Shanghai Huawei Technology Co.LTD
Qian Chang Building
No.450 Jin Yu Road Pudong
Shanghai,201206
china
Phone:
Email: John.zhao@huawei.com
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 12]