[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 5177

MIP4                                                            K. Leung
Internet-Draft                                                G. Dommety
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: September 12, 2008                                 V. Narayanan
                                                          Qualcomm, Inc.
                                                             A. Petrescu
                                                                Motorola
                                                          March 11, 2008


           Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4
                  draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-11.txt

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 12, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document describes a protocol for supporting Mobile Networks
   between a Mobile Router and a Home Agent by extending the Mobile IPv4
   protocol.  A Mobile Router is responsible for the mobility of one or
   more network segments or subnets moving together.  The Mobile Router



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   hides its mobility from the nodes on the mobile network.  The nodes
   on the Mobile Network may be fixed in relationship to the Mobile
   Router and may not have any mobility function.

   Extensions to Mobile IPv4 are introduced to support Mobile Networks.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Examples of Mobile Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Overview of Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Mobile Network Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Mobile Network Request Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Mobile Router Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Error Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  Mobile Router Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Home Agent Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.  Data Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.2.1.  Registration Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.2.2.  Prefix Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.3.  Mobile Network Prefix Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.4.  Advertising Mobile Network Reachability  . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.5.  Establishment of Bi-directional Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.6.  Sending Registration Replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.7.  Mobile Network Prefix De-registration  . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Data Forwarding Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  Nested Mobile Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  Routing Protocol between Mobile Router and Home Agent  . . . . 18
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.1. Security when Dynamic Routing Protocol is Used . . . . . . 20
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Appendix A.  ChangeLog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 30








Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


1.  Introduction

   This document describes network mobility extensions to the Mobile
   IPv4 protocol.  The goal of introducing these extensions is to
   acommodate mobility scenarios where groups of hosts and routers move
   homogeneously (as a whole).  It is required that all hosts and
   routers in a mobile network be able to run applications connecting to
   the Internet, and to be reachable from the Internet.

   For details regarding terminology related to network mobility (NEMO),
   the gentle reader is suggested a quick read of RFC 4885 [RFC4885].

1.1.  Examples of Mobile Networks

   A mobile network links together a set of hosts and routers.
   Connecting this mobile network to the Internet is ensured at two
   levels: first, a Mobile Router is connected on one side to the Mobile
   Network and on another side to a wireless access system; second, a
   Home Agent placed on the home link manages traffic between the
   Correspondent Node and a Local Fixed Node (LFN, a node in the mobile
   network) by means of encapsulating traffic.

   A scenario of applicability for this mobile network is described
   next.  A mobile network is formed by a wireless-enabled Personal
   Digital Assistant (PDA) and a portable photographic camera, linked
   together by Bluetooth wireless link-layer technology.  This is
   sometimes referred to as a Personal Area Network (PAN).  In the
   illustration below one can notice the PDA playing the role of a
   Mobile Router and the camera the role of Local Fixed Node:






















Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


                       ----
                      | HA |
                       ----        --------
                        |        /          \          ----
                       -+--------| Internet |---------| CN |
                                 \          /          ----
                                   --------
                                 /          \
                                /            \
                               /              \
                             ----            ----
                            | AR |          | AR |
                             ----            ----
                               |cellular       |cellular



                        /      |cellular
                        |    ----        ----
               Mobile   |   | MR |      |LFN |   ---movement-->
              Network   <    ----        ----
                        |      |           |
                        |     -+-----------+-
                        \       Bluetooth



   The camera (Local Fixed Node) uploads photographic content to a
   Correspondent Node (CN) server.  When the mobile network moves away,
   the Mobile Router serving the mobile network changes its point of
   attachment from one cellular access (Access Router) to another,
   obtaining a new Care-of Address.  The Home Agent (HA) encapsulates
   application traffic for CN and LFN.

   Whereas the illustration above is a very simple instantiation of the
   applicability of Mobile IP-based mobile networks, more complex mobile
   networks are easily acommodated by the Mobile IPv4 extensions
   presented in this document (NEMOv4).  For example, laptop computers
   used by passengers in a bus, train, ship or in a plane should all be
   considered as forming mobile networks, as long as they move together
   (homogeneously).

1.2.  Overview of Protocol

   As introduced previously, this document presents extensions to the
   Mobile IPv4 protocol.  The entities sending and receiving these
   extensions are the Mobile Router and the Home Agent.  The Local Fixed
   Node is relieved from running Mobile IP software and, although it



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   moves (together with the mobile network), its IP stack is not seing
   any change in addressing.

   Mobility for the entire Mobile Network is supported by the Mobile
   Router registering its current point of attachment (Care-of Address)
   to its Home Agent: Mobile Router sends an extended Registration
   Request to Home Agent which returns an extended Registration Reply.
   This signaling sets up the tunnel between the two entities, as
   illustrated in the following figure:


                  LFN        MR                      HA        CN
                   |         |                       |         |
                   |         | Extended Registration |         |
                   |         |---------------------->|         |
                   |         |        Request        |         |
                   |         |                       |         |
                   |         |                       |         |
                   |         | Extended Registration |         |
                   |         |<----------------------|         |
                   |         |        Reply          |         |
                   |         |                       |         |
                   |<--------o=======================o-------->|
                   |         |     Encapsulated      |         |
                   |         |  Application Traffic  |         |
                   |         |                       |         |


   The prefix(es) used within a Mobile Network (either implicitly
   configured on the Home Agent or explicitly identified by the Mobile
   Router in the Registration Request) is/are advertised by the Home
   Agent for route propagation in the home network.  Traffic to and from
   nodes in the Mobile Network are tunelled by the Home Agent to the
   Mobile Router, and vice versa.  Though packets from a Local Fixed
   Node placed in the Mobile Network can be forwarded by the Mobile
   Router directly without tunneling (if reverse tunneling were not
   used) these packets will be dropped if ingress filtering is turned on
   at the Access Router.

   Extensively relating to Mobile IPv4 RFC 3344 [RFC3344], this
   specification addresses mainly the co-located Care-of Address mode.
   Foreign Agent Care-of Address mode (with 'legacy' Foreign Agents,
   RFC 3344 [RFC3344]) are supported but without optimization, double
   encapsulation being used.  For an optimization of this mode, the
   gentle reader is directed to an extension document
   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa].

   Compared to Mobile IPv4, this document specifies an additional tunnel



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   between a Mobile Router's Home Address and the Home Agent.  This
   tunnel is encapsulated within the normal tunnel between the Care-of
   Address (CoA) and Home Agent.  In Foreign Agent CoA mode, the tunnel
   between the Mobile Router and Home Agent is needed to allow the
   Foreign Agent to direct the decapsulated packet to the proper
   visiting Mobile Router.  However, in Collocated CoA mode, the
   additional tunnel is not essential and could be eliminated because
   the Mobile Router is the recipient of the encapsulated packets for
   the Mobile Network; a proposal for this feature is in a further
   extending document [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa].

   All traffic between the nodes in the Mobile Network and Correspondent
   Nodes passes through the Home Agent.  This document does not touch on
   aspects related to route optimization of this traffic.

   A similar protocol has been documented in RFC 3963 [RFC3963] for
   supporting IPv6 mobile networks with Mobile IPv6 extensions.

   Multihoming for Mobile Routers is outside the scope of this document.


2.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   Terminology for Mobile IPv4 mobility support is defined in RFC 3344
   [RFC3344].  Terminology for network mobility support (NEMO), from an
   IPv6 perspective, is described in RFC 4885 [RFC4885].  In addition,
   this document defines the following terms for NEMOv4.

   Mobile Router

           RFC 3344 [RFC3344] defines a Mobile Router as a mobile node
           that can be a router that is responsible for the mobility of
           one or more entire networks moving together, perhaps on an
           airplane, a ship, a train, an automobile, a bicycle, or a
           kayak.

   Mobile Network Prefix

           The network prefix of the subnet delegated to a Mobile Router
           as the Mobile Network.







Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   Prefix Table

           A list of Mobile Network Prefixes indexed by the Home Address
           of a Mobile Router.  The Home Agent manages and uses Prefix
           Table to determine which Mobile Network Prefixes belong to a
           particular Mobile Router.

   Local Fixed Node

           RFC 4885 [RFC4885] defines a Local Fixed Node (LFN) to be a
           fixed node belonging to the mobile network and unable to
           change its point of attachment.  This definition should not
           be confused with "Long, Fat Network, LFN" of RFC 1323
           [RFC1323], at least because this latter is pronounced
           "elephan(t)" whereas a NEMO LFN is distinctively pronounced
           "elefen".


3.  Requirements

   Although the original Mobile IPv4 specifications stated that Mobile
   Networks can be supported by the Mobile Router and Home Agent using
   static configuration or running a routing protocol (see Section 4.5
   of RFC 3344 [RFC3344]), there is no solution for explicit
   registration of the Mobile Networks served by the Mobile Router.  A
   solution needs to provide the Home Agent a means to ensure that a
   Mobile Router claiming a certain Mobile Network Prefix is authorized
   to do so.  A solution would also expose the Mobile Network Prefixes
   (and potentially other subnet-relevant information) in the exchanged
   messages, to aid in network debugging.

   The following requirements for Mobile Network support are enumerated:

   o  A Mobile Router should be able to operate in explicit or implicit
      mode.  A Mobile Router may explicitly inform the Home Agent which
      Mobile Network(s) need to be propagated via a routing protocol.  A
      Mobile Router may also function in implicit mode, where the Home
      Agent may learn the mobile networks through other means, such as
      from the AAA server, via pre-configuration, or via a dynamic
      routing protocol.

   o  The Mobile Network should be supported using Foreign Agents that
      are compliant to RFC 3344 [RFC3344] without any changes ('legacy'
      Foreign Agents).

   o  The mobile network should allow Fixed Nodes, Mobile Nodes, or
      Mobile Routers to be on it.




Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   o  The Local Fixed Nodes on a mobile network should be able to
      execute their sessions without running themselves Mobile IP
      stacks.  The Mobile Router managing the LFNs' mobile network is
      'hiding' mobility events like the changes of the Care-of Address
      from the Local Fixed Nodes in that mobile network.


4.  Mobile Network Extensions

4.1.  Mobile Network Request Extension

   For Explicit Mode, the Mobile Router informs the Home Agent about the
   Mobile Network Prefixes during registration.  The Registration
   Request contains zero, one or several Mobile Network Request
   extensions in addition to any other extensions defined by or in the
   context of RFC 3344 [RFC3344].  When several Mobile Networks are
   needed to be registered, each is included in a separate Mobile
   Network Request extension, with its own Type, Length, Sub-Type,
   Prefix Length and Prefix.  A Mobile Network Request extension is
   encoded in Type-Length-Value (TLV) format and respects the following
   ordering:


      0               1               2               3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |   Sub-Type    | Prefix Length |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Prefix                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Type:

           Mobile Network Extension (skippable type range to be assigned
           by IANA).


   Length:

           Decimal 6.


   Sub-Type:







Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


           TBA     (Mobile Network Request)


   Prefix Length:

           8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of leftmost bits
           covering the network part of the address contained in the
           Prefix field.


   Prefix:

           32-bit unsigned integer in network byte-order containing an
           IPv4 address whose leftmost Prefix Length bits make up the
           Mobile Network Prefix.

4.2.  Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension

   The Registration Reply contains zero, one or several Mobile Network
   Acknowledgement extensions in addition to any other extensions
   defined by or in the context of RFC 3344 [RFC3344].  For Implicit
   Mode, the Mobile Network Acknowledgement informs the Mobile Router
   the prefixes for which the Home Agent sets up forwarding with respect
   to this Mobile Router.  Policies such as permitting only traffic from
   these Mobile Networks to be tunneled to the Home Agent may be applied
   by the Mobile Router.  For Explicit Mode, when several Mobile
   Networks are needed to be acknowledged explicitly, each is included
   in a separate Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension, with its own
   Type, Sub-Type, Length, Prefix and Prefix Length fields.  At least
   one Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension MUST be in a successful
   Registration Reply to indicate to the Mobile Router that the Mobile
   Network Request extension was processed, thereby not skipped by the
   Home Agent.

   A Registration Reply may contain any non-zero number of Explicit Mode
   and Implicit Mode Acknowledgements sub-types.  Both sub-types can be
   present in a single Registration Reply.  A Mobile Network
   Acknowledgement extension is encoded in Type-Length-Value (TLV)
   format.  When the registration is denied with Code HA_MOBNET_ERROR
   (Code field in the Registration Reply), the Code field in the
   included Mobile Network Extension provides the reason for the
   failure.









Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


       0               1               2               3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |    Length     |   Sub-Type    |      Code     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Prefix Length |    Reserved   |            Prefix...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  ...Prefix           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Type:

           TBA     Mobile Network Extension (skippable type range to be
                   assigned by IANA).


   Length:

           Decimal 8.


   Sub-Type:

           TBA     (Explicit Mode Acknowledgement)

           TBA     (Implicit Mode Acknowledgement)


   Code:

           Value indicating success or failure:

           TBA     Success

           TBA     Invalid prefix (MOBNET_INVALID_PREFIX_LEN)

           TBA     Mobile Router is not authorized for prefix
                   (MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED)

           TBA     Forwarding setup failed (MOBNET_FWDING_SETUP_FAILED)


   Prefix Length:

           8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of leftmost bits
           covering the network part of the address contained in the
           Prefix field.



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   Reserved:

           Sent as zero; ignored on reception.


   Prefix:

           32-bit unsigned integer in network byte-order containing an
           IPv4 address whose leftmost Prefix Length bits make up the
           Mobile Network Prefix.



5.  Mobile Router Operation

   A Mobile Router's operation is generally derived from the behavior of
   a Mobile Node, as set in RFC 3344 [RFC3344].  In addition to
   maintaining mobility bindings for its Home Address, the Mobile
   Router, together with the Home Agent, maintains forwarding
   information for the Mobile Network Prefix(es) assigned to the Mobile
   Router.

   A Mobile Router SHOULD set the 'T' bit to 1 in all Registration
   Request messages it sends to indicate the need for reverse tunnels
   for all traffic.  Without reverse tunnels, all the traffic from the
   mobile network will be subject to ingress filtering in the visited
   networks.  Upon reception of a successful Registration Reply, the
   Mobile Router processes the registration in accordance to RFC 3344
   [RFC3344].  In addition, the following steps are taken:

   o  Check for Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension(s) in
      Registration Reply

   o  Create tunnel to the Home Agent if registered in reverse tunneling
      mode

   o  Set up default route via this tunnel or egress interface when
      registered with or without reverse tunneling, respectively

   In accordance with this specification, a Mobile Router may operate in
   one of the following two modes: explicit and implicit.  In explicit
   mode, the Mobile Router includes Mobile Network Prefix information in
   all Registration Requests (as Mobile Network Request extensions),
   while in implicit mode it does not include this information in any
   Registration Request.  In this latter case, the Home Agent obtains
   the Mobile Network Prefixes by other means than Mobile IP.  One
   example of obtaining the Mobile Network Prefix is through static
   configuration on the Home Agent.



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   A Mobile Router can obtain a Collocated or Foreign Agent Care-of
   Address while operating in explicit or implicit modes.

   For de-registration, the Mobile Router sends a registration request
   with lifetime set to zero without any Mobile Network Request
   extensions.

5.1.  Error Processing

   In a Mobile IP Registration Reply message there may be two Code
   fields: one proper to the Registration Reply header (the 'proper'
   Code) and one within the Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension
   (simply the 'Code').  A Mobile Router interprets the values of the
   Code field in the Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension of the
   Registration Reply in order to identify any error related to managing
   the Mobile Network Prefixes by the Home Agent.  It also interprets
   the values of the Code field in the Registration Reply header (the
   proper Code).

   If the value of the Code field in the Registration Reply (the proper)
   is set to HA_MOBNET_DISALLOWED, then the Mobile Router MUST stop
   sending Registration Requests with any Mobile Network Prefix
   extensions to that Home Agent.

   If the value of the Code field in the Registration Reply (the proper)
   is set to HA_MOBNET_ERROR then the Mobile Router MUST stop sending
   Registration Requests that contain any of the Mobile Network Prefixes
   that are defined by the values of the fields Prefix and Prefix Length
   in the Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension.  Note that the
   registration is denied in this case and no forwarding for any Mobile
   Network Prefixes would be set up by the Home Agent for the Mobile
   Router.

   It is possible that the Mobile Router receives a Registration Reply
   with no mobile network extensions if the registration was processed
   by a Mobile IPv4 home agent that does not support this specification
   at all.  In that case, the absence of mobile network extensions must
   be interpreted by the Mobile Router as the case where the Home Agent
   does not support mobile networks.

   All the error code values are TBA (To Be Assigned) subject to IANA
   allocation.

5.2.  Mobile Router Management

   Operating a Mobile Router in a Mobile IPv4 environment has certain
   requirements on the management of the necessary initial configuration
   and supervision of the ongoing status information.  Mobile Router



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   maintenance indicators may need to be exposed in a manner consistent
   with other Mobile IPv4 indicators.

   The objects for the Management Information Base (MIB) for Mobile IPv4
   are defined in RFC 2006 [RFC2006].  The structure of the basic model
   of Mobile IP protocol describes three entities: Mobile Node, Home
   Agent and Foreign Agent.  In addition to these entities this document
   proposes a functional entity to be the Mobile Router.

   The necessary initial configuration at a NEMOv4-enabled Home Agent
   includes, but is not limited to, the contents of the Prefix Table.
   The Mobile Router MAY need to store the Mobile Network Prefixes as
   the initial configuration.

   The definition of MIB objects related to Mobile Router and of a
   NEMOv4-enabled Home Agent is outside the scope of this document.


6.  Home Agent Operation

6.1.  Summary

   A Home Agent MUST support all the operations specified in RFC 3344
   [RFC3344] for Mobile Node support.  The Home Agent MUST support both
   implicit and explicit modes of operation for a Mobile Router.

   The Home Agent processes the registration in accordance to RFC 3344
   [RFC3344], which includes route set up to the Mobile Router's Home
   Address via the tunnel to the Care-of Address.  In addition, for a
   Mobile Router registering in explicit mode, the following steps are
   taken:

   1.  Check that the Mobile Network Prefix information is valid

   2.  Ensure the Mobile Network Prefix(es) is or are authorized to be
       on the Mobile Router

   3.  Create tunnel to the Mobile Router if it does not already exist

   4.  Set up route for the Mobile Network Prefix via this tunnel

   5.  Propagate Mobile Network Prefix routes via routing protocol if
       necessary

   6.  Send the Registration Reply with the Mobile Network
       Acknowledgement extension(s)

   If there are any subnet routes via the tunnel to the Mobile Router



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   that are not specified in the Mobile Network extensions, these routes
   are removed.

   In the case where the Mobile Node is not permitted to act as a Mobile
   Router, the Home Agent sends a Registration Reply message whose Code
   field is HA_MOBNET_DISALLOWED (the proper Code field of the
   Registration Reply).

   For a Mobile Router registering in implicit mode, the Home Agent
   performs steps 3-6 above, once the registration request is processed
   successfully.

   For deregistration, the Home Agent removes the tunnel to the Mobile
   Router and all routes using this tunnel.  The Mobile Network
   extensions are ignored.

6.2.  Data Structures

6.2.1.  Registration Table

   The Registration Table in the Home Agent, in accordance with RFC 3344
   [RFC3344], contains binding information for every Mobile Node
   registered with it.  RFC 3344 [RFC3344] defines the format of a
   Registration Table.  In addition to all the parameters specified by
   RFC 3344 [RFC3344], the Home Agent MUST store the Mobile Network
   Prefixes associated with the Mobile Router in the corresponding
   registration entry, when the corresponding registration was performed
   in explicit mode.  When the Home Agent is advertising reachability to
   Mobile Network Prefixes served by a Mobile Router, the information
   stored in the Registration Table can be used.

6.2.2.  Prefix Table

   The Home Agent must be able to authorize a Mobile Router for use of
   Mobile Network Prefixes when the Mobile Router is operating in
   explicit mode.  Also, when the Mobile Router operates in implicit
   mode, the Home Agent must be able to locate the Mobile Network
   Prefixes associated with that Mobile Router.  The Home Agent may
   store the Home Address of the Mobile Router along with the mobile
   network prefixes associated with that Mobile Router.  If the Mobile
   Router does not have a Home Address assigned, this table may store
   the NAI RFC 2794 [RFC2794] of the Mobile Router that will be used in
   dynamic Home Address assignment.

6.3.  Mobile Network Prefix Registration

   The Home Agent must process registration requests coming from Mobile
   Routers in accordance with this section.  The document RFC 3344



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   [RFC3344] specifies that the Home Address of a mobile node
   registering with a Home Agent must belong to a prefix advertised on
   the home network.  In accordance with this specification, however,
   the Home Address must be configured from a prefix that is served by
   the Home Agent, not necessarily the one on the home network.

   If the registration request is valid, the Home Agent checks to see if
   there are any Mobile Network Prefix extensions included in the
   Registration Request.

   If so, the Mobile Network Prefix information is obtained from the
   included extensions, and the Home Address from the Home Address field
   of the Registration Request.  For every Mobile Network Prefix
   extension included in the registration request, the Home Agent MUST
   perform a check against the Prefix Table.  If the Prefix Table does
   not contain at least one entry pairing that Home Address to that
   Mobile Network Prefix then the check fails, otherwise it succeeds.

   Following this check against the Prefix Table, the Home Agent MUST
   construct a Registration Reply containing Mobile Network
   Acknowledgement extensions.  For a Mobile Network Prefix for which
   the check was unsuccessful the Code field in the corresponding Mobile
   Network Acknowledgement extension should be set to
   MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED.

   For a Mobile Network Prefix for which the check was successful the
   Code field in the respective Mobile Network Acknowledgement
   extensions should be set to 0.

   The Home Agent MUST attempt to set up forwarding for each Mobile
   Network Prefix extension for which the Prefix Table check was
   successful.  If the forwarding setup fails for a particular Mobile
   Network Prefix (for reasons when, for example, there is not enough
   memory available, or not enough devices available, or other reason)
   the Code field in the respective Mobile Network Acknowledgement
   extension should be set to MOBNET_FWDING_SETUP_FAILED.

   If forwarding and setup was successful for at least one Mobile
   Network Prefix then the Code field (proper) of the Registration Reply
   message should be set to 0.  Otherwise, when forwarding and setup was
   unsuccessful for each and every Mobile Network Prefixes, that Code
   (proper) should be HA_MOBNET_ERROR.

   If the registration request is sent in implicit mode, i.e., without
   any Mobile Network Request extension, the Home Agent may use pre-
   configured mobile network prefix information for the Mobile Router to
   set up forwarding.




Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   If the Home Agent is updating an existing binding entry for the
   Mobile Router, it MUST check all the prefixes in the registration
   table against the prefixes included in the registration request.  If
   one or more mobile network prefix is missing from the included
   information in the registration request, it MUST delete those
   prefixes from the registration table.  Also, the Home Agent MUST
   disable forwarding for those prefixes.

   If all checks are successful, the Home Agent either creates a new
   entry for the Mobile Router or updates an existing binding entry for
   it and returns a successful registration reply back to the Mobile
   Router or the Foreign Agent (if the registration request was received
   from a Foreign Agent).

   In accordance with RFC 3344 [RFC3344], the Home Agent does proxy ARP
   for the Mobile Router Home Address, when the Mobile Router Home
   Address is derived from the home network.

   If the 'T' bit is set, the Home Agent creates a bi-directional tunnel
   for the corresponding mobile network prefixes or updates the existing
   bi-directional tunnel.  This tunnel is maintained independent of the
   reverse tunnel for the Mobile Router home address itself.

6.4.  Advertising Mobile Network Reachability

   If the mobile network prefixes served by the Home Agent are
   aggregated with the home network prefix and if the Home Agent is the
   default router on the home network, the Home Agent does not have to
   advertise the Mobile Network Prefixes.  The routes for the Mobile
   Network Prefix are automatically aggregated into the home network
   prefix (it is assumed that the Mobile Network Prefixes are
   automatically aggregated into the home network prefix).  If the
   Mobile Router updates the mobile network prefix routes via a dynamic
   routing protocol, the Home Agent SHOULD propagate the routes on the
   appropriate networks.

6.5.  Establishment of Bi-directional Tunnel

   The Home Agent creates and maintains a bi-directional tunnel for the
   mobile network prefixes of a Mobile Router registered with it.  A
   home agent supporting IPv4 Mobile Router operation MUST be able to
   forward packets destined to the mobile network prefixes served by the
   Mobile Router to its Care-of Address.  Also, the Home Agent MUST be
   able to accept packets tunneled by the Mobile Router with the source
   address of the outer header set to the Care-of Address of the Mobile
   Router and that of the inner header set to the Mobile Router's Home
   Address or an address from one of the registered mobile network
   prefixes.



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


6.6.  Sending Registration Replies

   The Home Agent MUST set the status code in the registration reply to
   0 to indicate successful processing of the registration request and
   successful set up of forwarding for at least one mobile network
   prefixes served by the Mobile Router.  The registration reply MUST
   contain at least one Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension.

   If the Home Agent is unable to set up forwarding for one or more
   mobile network prefixes served by the Mobile Router, it MUST set the
   Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension status Code in the
   registration reply to MOBNET_FWDING_SETUP_FAILED.  When the prefix
   length is zero or greater than decimal 32, the status Code MUST be
   set to MOBNET_INVALID_PREFIX_LEN.

   If the Mobile Router is not authorized to forward packets to a mobile
   network prefixes included in the request, the Home Agent MUST set the
   Code to MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED.

6.7.  Mobile Network Prefix De-registration

   If the received registration request is for de-registration of the
   Care-of Address, the Home Agent, upon successful processing of it,
   MUST delete the entry(ies) from its registration table.  The home
   agent tears down the bi-directional tunnel and stops forwarding any
   packets to/from the Mobile Router.  The Home Agent MUST ignore any
   included Mobile Network Request extension in a de-registration
   request.


7.  Data Forwarding Operation

   For traffic to the nodes in the Mobile Network, the Home Agent MUST
   perform double tunneling of the packet, if the Mobile Router had
   registered with a Foreign Agent Care-of Address.  In this case, the
   Home Agent MUST encapsulate the packet with tunnel header (source IP
   address set to Home Agent and destination IP address set to Mobile
   Router's Home Address) and then encapsulate one more time with tunnel
   header (source IP address set to Home Agent and destination IP
   address set to CoA).

   For optimization, the Home Agent SHOULD only encapsulate the packet
   with the tunnel header (source IP address set to Home Agent and
   destination IP address set to CoA) for Collocated CoA mode.

   When a Home Agent receives a packet from the mobile network prefix in
   the bi-directional tunnel, it MUST de-encapsulate the packet and
   route it as a normal IP packet.  It MUST verify that the incoming



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   packet has the source IP address set to the Care-of Address of the
   Mobile Router.  The packet MUST be dropped if the source address is
   not set to the Care-of Address of the Mobile Router.

   For traffic from the nodes in the Mobile Network, the Mobile Router
   encapsulates the packet with a tunnel header (source IP address set
   to Mobile Router's Home Address and destination IP address set to
   Home Agent) if reverse tunnel is enabled.  Otherwise, the packet is
   routed directly to the Foreign Agent or access router.

   In Collocated CoA mode, the Mobile Router MAY encapsulate one more
   times with a tunnel header (source IP address set to the CoA and
   destination IP address set to Home Agent).


8.  Nested Mobile Networks

   Nested Network Mobility is a scenario where a Mobile Router allows
   another Mobile Router to attach to its Mobile Network.  There could
   be arbitrary levels of nested mobility.  The operation of each Mobile
   Router remains the same whether the Mobile Router attaches to another
   Mobile Router or to a fixed Access Router on the Internet.  The
   solution described here does not place any restriction on the number
   of levels for nested mobility.  Two issues should be noted though.
   First, whenever physical loops occur in a nested aggregation of
   mobile networks this protocol does neither detect nor solve them -
   datagram forwarding may be blocked.  Second, Mobile Routers in a deep
   nested aggregation of mobile networks might introduce significant
   overhead on the data packets as each level of nesting introduces
   another tunnel header encapsulation.  Applications that do not
   support MTU discovery are adversely affected by the additional header
   encapsulations, because the usable MTU is reduced with each level of
   nesting.


9.  Routing Protocol between Mobile Router and Home Agent

   There are several benefits of running a dynamic routing protocol
   between the Mobile Router and the Home Agent.  If the mobile network
   is relatively large, including several wireless subnets, then the
   topology changes within the moving network can be exposed from the
   Mobile Router to the Home Agent by using a dynamic routing protocol.
   The purpose of the NEMOv4 protocol extensions to Mobile IPv4, as
   defined in previous sections, is not to inform the Home Agent about
   these topology changes, but to manage the mobility of the Mobile
   Router.

   Similarly, topology changes in the home network can be exposed to the



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   Mobile Router by using a dynamic routing protocol.  This may be
   necessary when new fixed networks are added in the home network.
   Here too, the purpose of NEMOv4 extensions is not to inform the
   Mobile Router about topology changes at home.

   Examples of dynamic routing protocol include but are not limited to
   OSPF Version 2 RFC 2328 [RFC2328], BGP RFC 4271 [RFC4271] and RIP
   RFC 2453 [RFC2453].

   The recommendations are related to how the routing protocol and the
   Mobile IPv4 implementation work in tandem on the Mobile Router and on
   the Home Agent (1) without creating incoherent states in the
   forwarding information bases at home and on the Mobile Router, (2)
   without introducing topologically incorrect addressing information in
   the visited domain and (3) efficiently avoid duplication of sent data
   or over-provisioning of security.

   The information exchanged between the Mobile Router and the Home
   Agent is sent over the bi-directional tunnel established by the
   Mobile IPv4 exchange Registration Request - Registration Reply (see
   Section 6.5).  If a network address and prefix about a subnet in the
   moving network is sent by the Mobile Router within a routing protocol
   message then they SHOULD NOT be sent in the Mobile IPv4 Registration
   Request too, in order to avoid incoherencies in the forwarding
   information bases.  The Mobile Router SHOULD use NEMOv4 implicit mode
   in this case (see Section 3).

   The Mobile Router SHOULD NOT send routing protocol information
   updates in the foreign network.  The subnet addresses and prefixes
   valid in the moving network are topologically incorrect in the
   visited network.

   If the Mobile Router and the Home Agent use a dynamic routing
   protocol over the tunnel interface, and if that protocol offers
   security mechanisms to protect that protocol's messages, then the
   security recommendations in Section 10.1 apply.


10.  Security Considerations

   The Mobile Network extension is protected by the same rules for
   Mobile IP extensions in registration messages.  See the Security
   Considerations section in RFC 3344 [RFC3344].

   The Home Agent MUST be able to verify that the Mobile Router is
   authorized to provide mobility service for the Mobile Networks in the
   registration request, before anchoring these Mobile Network Prefixes
   on behalf of the Mobile Router.  Forwarding for prefixes MUST NOT be



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   set up without successful authorization of the Mobile Router for
   those prefixes.  A registration failure MUST be notified to the
   mobile router when it cannot be successfully authorized for prefixes
   requested by it.

   All registration requests and replies MUST be authenticated by the
   MN-HA Authentication Extension as specified in RFC 3344 [RFC3344].
   When the registration request is sent in explicit mode, i.e., with
   one or more Mobile Network Prefix extensions, all the Mobile Network
   Prefix extensions MUST be included before the MN-HA Authentication
   extension.  Also, these extensions MUST be included in the
   calculation of the MN-HA authenticator value.

   The Mobile Router should perform ingress filtering on all the packets
   received on the mobile network prior to reverse tunneling them to the
   Home Agent.  The Mobile Router MUST drop any packets that do not have
   a source address belonging to the mobile network.

   The Mobile Router MUST also ensure that the source address of packets
   arriving on the mobile network is not the same as the Mobile Router's
   IP address on any interface.  These checks will protect against nodes
   attempting to launch IP spoofing attacks through the bi-directional
   tunnel.

   The Home Agent, upon receiving packets through the bi-directional
   tunnel, MUST verify that the source addresses of the outer IP header
   of the packets are set to the Mobile Router's care-of-address.  Also,
   it MUST ensure that the source address of the inner IP header is a
   topologically correct address on the mobile network.  This will
   prevent nodes from using the Home Agent to launch attacks inside the
   protected network.

10.1.  Security when Dynamic Routing Protocol is Used

   If a dynamic routing protocol is used between the Mobile Router and
   the Home Agent to propagate the mobile network information into the
   home network, the routing updates SHOULD be protected with IPsec ESP
   confidentiality between the Mobile Router and Home Agent, to prevent
   information about home network topology from being visible to
   eavesdroppers.


11.  IANA Considerations

   IANA to assign rules for the existing registry "Mobile IPv4 numbers -
   per RFC 3344".  The numbering space for Extensions that may appear in
   Mobile IP control messages (those sent to and from UDP port number
   434) should be modified.



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   The new Values and Names for the Type for Extensions appearing in
   Mobile IP control messages are the following:

       +-------+---------------------------------------------------+
       | Value | Name                                              |
       +-------+---------------------------------------------------+
       |   TBA | Mobile Network Extension (To Be Assigned by IANA) |
       +-------+---------------------------------------------------+

     Table 1: New Values and Names for Extensions in Mobile IP Control
                                 Messages

   A new number space should be created for the Values and Names for the
   Sub-Type for Mobile Network Extensions.  This number space is
   initially defined to hold the following entries, allocated by this
   document:

            +-------+-----------------------------------------+
            | Value | Name                                    |
            +-------+-----------------------------------------+
            |   TBA | Mobile Network Request Extension        |
            |   TBA | Explicit Mode Acknowledgement Extension |
            |   TBA | Implicit Mode Acknowledgement Extension |
            +-------+-----------------------------------------+

     Table 2: New Values and Names for the Sub-Type for Mobile Network
                                Extensions

   The policy of future assignments to this number space should be
   following Standards Action or IESG Approval (see [RFC2434]).

   The new Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply messages are the
   following (for a registration denied by the Home Agent):

   +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
   | Value | Name                                                      |
   +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
   |   TBA | Mobile Network Prefix operation error (HA_MOBNET_ERROR)   |
   |   TBA | Mobile Router operation is not permitted                  |
   |       | (HA_MOBNET_DISALLOWED)                                    |
   +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

         Table 3: New Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply

   A new number space should be created for the Code Values for the
   Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension.  This number space is
   initially defined to hold the following entries, allocated by this
   document (result of registration, as sent by the Home Agent):



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   +-----+-------------------------------------------------------------+
   | TBA | Success                                                     |
   | TBA | Invalid prefix length (MOBNET_INVALID_PREFIX_LEN)           |
   | TBA | Mobile Router is not authorized for prefix                  |
   |     | (MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED)                                       |
   | TBA | Forwarding setup failed (MOBNET_FWDING_SETUP_FAILED)        |
   +-----+-------------------------------------------------------------+

   Table 4: New Code Values for Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension

   The policy of future assignments to this number space should be
   following Standards Action or IESG Approval (see [RFC2434]).

   The current non-modified numbering spaces could be consulted at the
   URL http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers (contents last
   updated 2007-12-20 and last browsed 2008-01-04).


12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Christophe Janneteau, George
   Popovich, Ty Bekiares, Ganesh Srinivasan, Alpesh Patel, Ryuji
   Wakikawa, George Tsirtsis, and Henrik Levkowetz for their helpful
   discussions, reviews and comments.  Vijay Devarapalli extensively
   reviewed one of the later versions of the draft.  Hans Sjostrand
   (Hans Sj\"ostrand) identified the last clarifications with respect to
   Foreign Agent mode treatment.  Pete McCann contributed necessary
   refinements of many statements.

   Mobile IPv4 versions as early as 1996 (RFC 2002) described Mobile
   Networks and Mobile Routers support.  Charles Perkins.

   Fred Templin indicated the potential confusion for the term "LFN".

   Amanda Baber of IANA agreed on the principles of allocating numbers
   for this specification and suggested improvements on the IANA
   section.

   Tim Polk of IESG identified a deeply entrenched error on managing the
   Code fields.

   Lars Eggert of IESG suggested the acommodation of the otherwise legal
   non-contiguous netmask fields, instead of simply prefix lengths.

   Dan Romascanu of IESG indicated the necessity of manageability of
   Mobile Routers and NEMOv4-enabled Home Agents and their deployability
   in MIP4 environments.




Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   David Borman of TSV-DIR reviewed this document as part of the
   transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF
   documents.  The implications of the growth of usable MTU adversely
   affecting applications deep in a mobile network were suggested.

   Gonzalo Camarillo provided a generalist review by an additional set
   of eyes for documents as they are being considered for publication
   (General Area Review Team).

   Jari Arkko of IESG reviewed, suggested necessary improvements to, and
   diligently shepherded this document through IESG.


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1323]  Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
              for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.

   [RFC2006]  Cong, D., Hamlen, M., and C. Perkins, "The Definitions of
              Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2",
              RFC 2006, October 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2453]  Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
              November 1998.

   [RFC2794]  Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access
              Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000.

   [RFC3344]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
              August 2002.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.







Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa]
              Tsirtsis, G., Park, V., Narayanan, V., and K. Leung, "FA
              extensions to NEMOv4 Base", draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-02
              (work in progress), November 2007.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, January 2005.

   [RFC4885]  Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
              Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.


Appendix A.  ChangeLog

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication. (said
   IESG member Russ Housley on 6th of February 2008: "Please delete
   Appendix A before publication as an RFC.")]

   The changes are listed in reverse chronological order, most recent
   changes appearing at the top of the list.

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-10.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-11.txt:

   o  Based on David Ward comment removed the section discussing on non-
      contiguous netmasks, as well as the Optional Netmask fields (but
      still kept the prefixlen-based contiguous netmasks.)

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-09.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-10.txt:

   o  Changed "192.168.1.1" notation to "192.0.2.0" documentation style
      addresses, as suggested by idnits.

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-09.txt, following IANA and IESG
   comments:

   o  Introduced an Optional Netmask field in both registrations and
      replies.  This is used when address/prefixlength is not a
      sufficient expression of network mask, for example when the subnet
      mask needs to be expressed as a non-contiguous set of 1bits (e.g.
      255.255.0.255).  Also described the reasoning of this in a section
      of its own.




Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   o  Extended the Introduction section with two subsections: example of
      mobile network and overall protocol operation.  Illustrated two
      figures.

   o  Added Local Fixed Node term definition and some citations to
      reference rfc4885 "Network Mobility Support Terminology".

   o  Clarified text about the Code field.  There are two Code fields:
      one in Registration Reply header (the Code proper) and one in the
      Mobile Network Extension header.  Also clarified conditions of
      proper Code being 0 successful and and relationships of proper
      Code 0 to Code in the Mobile Network Extension.

   o  Added a sub-section 'Mobile Router Management' about the initial
      configuration, ongoing supervision and management indicators of a
      Mobile Router and Home Agent.

   o  Substituted 'MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED' for 'MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED_MR'.

   o  Substituted 'IANA to assign rules' for 'IANA to modify rules'.

   o  Stressed that "applications that do not support MTU discovery are
      adversely affected by the additional header encapsulations,
      because the usable MTU is reduced with each level of nesting."

   o  Removed citations and reference to rfc3344bis
      (draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-05).

   o  Removed citations and reference to rfc2434bis
      (draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08).

   o  Extended the Acknowledgements section.

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-08.txt, following AD Review (Jari
   Arkko):

   o  HA propagates Mobile Network Prefix only if necessary (previously
      it was always doing it).

   o  emphasized that within nested mobile networks looping may occur
      and this document doesn't do anything to address this.

   o  dropped a phrase which said that Mobile-Home auth extension
      shouldn't be used when ESP protects the routing protocol message,
      because that extension is only applied to Registration messages
      (not tunneled data, which usually contains routing protocol
      exchange).



Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   o  recommending "Standards Action or IESG Review" instead of "Expert
      Review" for this numbering space, and added reference to a draft
      for 2434bis.

   o  editorial: re-phrased about how Mobile IPv4 claimed mobile
      networks support.

   o  editorial: added a necessary paragraph in the Acknowledgements
      section.

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-06.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt

   o  encoded the draft into xml.  Compiled with xml2rfc version
      1.33pre4.

   o  checked against 'idnits' script version 2.05.03.

   o  substituted 'Care-of Address' for 'CoA'.

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-05.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-06.txt

   o  substituted "TBA" for "1" in Sub-type of Mobile Network Request
      Extension.

   o  substituted "TBA" for "0" in Code of Mobile Network
      Acknowledgement Extension and in the IANA Section.

   o  modified the IANA section to request definition two new spaces
      (instead of just defining new values) for Sub-Type of Mobile
      Network Extensions and for Code Values for Mobile Network
      Acknowledgement Extension, and to suggest "Expert Review" as
      method of new assignments in these two spaces (and not necessarily
      "IETF Consensus").

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-04.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-05.txt

   o  updated the Acknowledgements section.

   o  capitalized all occurences of "Home Address", "Mobile Router" and
      "Care-of Address".

   o  refined many statements.

   o  checked against 'idnits' script version 2.04.16.




Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-03.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-04.txt

   o  more changes in Introduction to say that with FA mode only the
      non-optimized double-encapsulation operation is supported and
      [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa] proposes a optimization.

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-03.txt

   o  changed a sentence in the Introduction to say that FA mode _is_
      supported but unoptimized, and that a reference
      [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa] optimizes that mode.

   o  added I-D.ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis reference to the rfc3344bis draft.

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-01.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt

   o  changed title from "IPv4 Network Mobility (NEMO) Protocol" to
      "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4".

   From draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-00.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-01.txt

   o  added a section on Routing Protocol between Mobile Router and Home
      Agent.

   o  added a security subsection about running simultaneously a secure
      routing protocol with secure Mobile IPv4.

   o  added a date tag on the IANA URL for Mobile IP numbering spaces.

   o  substituted 'Mobile Router' for 'MR' everywhere.

   o  updated reference to NEMOv4 FA draft.

   From draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-01.txt to
   draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-00.txt:

   o  changed draft name, headers and footers.

   o  changed title.

   o  a more coherent use of terms 'subnet', 'prefix' and 'mobile
      network'.





Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   o  clarified only co-located CoA mode is supported (not FA CoA) for
      Mobile Routers in this specification.  And added reference to the
      FA NEMO optimizations draft.

   o  changed 'devices' to 'hosts'.

   o  changed 'moving networks' to 'mobile networks'.

   o  clarified what 'reachability' in a certain context is: packets may
      be dropped if ingress filtering is turned on.

   o  removed the MR-FA-CoA tunnel overhead optimization.  There is
      still an issue with text at HA doing optimization.

   This document was first presented as an individual contribution to
   the NEMO Working Group, then adopted as a WG item to that group.  The
   01 version in the NEMO WG has been Last Called on the INFORMATIONAL
   track.  The evolution was:

   From version draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00 to
   draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-01:

   o  removed error code HA_MOBNET_UNSUPPORTED.

   o  changed all values to be assigned by IANA, from specific numbers
      to "TBA" (To Be Assigned).

   o  substituted "egress interface" for "roaming interface".

   o  changed HA behaviour upon reception of MNPs.  In 00 the HA replied
      positively only if all MNPs in RegReq were valid, in 01 a reply is
      constructed specifying which MNP was valid and which not.

   o  clarified a 3-line paragraph saying that RegRep may contain both
      implicit and explicit acknowledgements.


Authors' Addresses

   Kent Leung
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1 408-526-5030
   Email: kleung@cisco.com




Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


   Gopal Dommety
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1 408-525-1404
   Email: gdommety@cisco.com


   Vidya Narayanan
   QUALCOMM, Inc.
   5775 Morehouse Dr
   San Diego, CA
   USA

   Phone: +1 858-845-2483
   Email: vidyan@qualcomm.com


   Alexandru Petrescu
   Motorola
   Parc les Algorithmes Saint Aubin
   Gif-sur-Yvette, Essonne  91140
   France

   Phone: +33 169354827
   Email: alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com























Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                Mobile Router                   March 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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).





Leung, et al.          Expires September 12, 2008              [Page 30]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/