The Mobility for IPv4 (mip4) working group in the Internet Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the working group Chairs. +++ Mobility for IPv4 (mip4) ------------------------ Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org> Internet Area Director(s): Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com> Internet Area Advisor: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mailing Lists: General Discussion:mip4@ietf.org To Subscribe: mip4-request@ietf.org In Body: subscribe Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4/index.html Description of Working Group: IP mobility support for IPv4 nodes (hosts and routers) is specified in RFC3344. RFC 3344 mobility allows a node to continue using its "permanent" home address as it moves around the Internet. The Mobile IP protocols support transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of active TCP connections and UDP port bindings. Besides the basic Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) protocols, several other drafts deal with concerns such as optimization, security, extensions, AAA support, and deployment issues. MIPv4 is currently being deployed on a wide basis (e.g., in cdma2000 networks). The scope of the deployment is on a fairly large scale and accordingly, the MIP4 WG will focus on deployment issues and on addressing known deficiencies and shortcomings in the protocol that have come up as a result of deployment experience. Specifically, the working group will complete the work items to facilitate interactions with AAA environments, interactions with enterprise environments when MIPv4 is used therein, and updating existing protocol specifications in accordance with deployment needs and advancing those protocols that are on the standards track. Work expected to be done by the MIP4 WG as proposed by this charter is as follows: 1. MIPv4 has been a proposed standard for several years. It has been adopted by other standard development organizations and has been deployed commercially. One of the next steps for the WG is to advance the protocol to draft standard status. As part of advancing base Mobile IP specs to DS, the MIPv4 NAI RFC (2794) will be revised to reflect implementation experience. 2. Work items that are pending from the previous Mobile IP WG, which will be completed by the MIP4 WG, are: - completion of the MIB for the revised base Mobile IP specification (2006bis) - regional registration draft. 3. The MIP4 WG will also complete the work on MIPv4 interactions in VPN scenarios. This work will involve identifying the requirements and a solution development for MIPv4 operation in the presence of IPsec VPNs. 4. Additionally, a proposal has been made for how MOBIKE could work together with MIPv4. This proposal does not describe any new protocol, but formulates a best current practice for deploying MOBIKE together with MIPv4. The working group will adopt and complete this document. 5. Some issues have been raised with respect to RFC3519. These will be identified and addressed as appropriate, through errata, revision of RFC 3519, and/or supplemental documents as needed. 6. It has been proposed that the FMIP protocol, which has been standardised for MIPv6 in the MIPSHOP working group, should also be published as an experimental protocol for MIPv4. A draft for this exists. The working group will take up and carry this work forward to publication 7. An extension to carry generic strings in the Registration Reply message has been proposed. The purpose is to supply supplemental human-readable information intended to the MN user. The working group will complete the specification and applicability statement of such an extension. 8. RADIUS attributes for MIP4. A set of RADIUS attributes has been proposed for MIPv4. The working group will first produce a requirements specification, describing how the work differs from the requirements in RFC 2977 and the functionality provided by RFC 4004 (the MIPv4 Diameter App). The reason why this first step is required is that RFC 3127 shows that full RFC 2977 functionality can't be provided by even a considerably extended RADIUS, so we need to match the requirements to what can be done within RADIUS. Provided the requirements work finds approval with ADs and RADEXT WG, the workgroup will complete the specification of MIPv4 RADIUS attributes, solicit feedback from the RADEXT WG, adjust, and submit this for publication. Note that the work may require extensions to the RADIUS attribute space which will be handled outside the MIP4 WG. 9. MIPv4 Extension for Configuration Options. Several drafts have proposed extensions to help improve configuration of MIPv4 clients. The latest proposal is for a general configuration option extension which could carry information such as e.g., DNS address and DHCP server address. The working group will take on and complete one proposal for a configuration option extension. 10. Dual-stack Support There have been several proposals for how to enable an IPv6 connection over a network that supports Mobile IPv4. A protocol enhancement to MIPv4 would allow for IPv6 support in a region where Mobile IPv4 has already been implemented and deployed. This would allow a dual stack mobile node to maintain IPv6 connectivity when using MIPv4. The solution would therefore be applicable only to networks that are not deploying Mobile IPv6. The working group will take on and complete one proposal for IPv6 over Mobile IPv4. This work is restricted to a small protocol extension similar to current Mobile IPv4 functionality. Support for advanced Mobile IPv6 functionality is strictly outside the scope. A problem statement covering both Mobile IPv4 and IPv6 dual-stack issues is expected to come out of MIP6 WG, and will not be developed in MIP4 WG. 11. MIPv4 Moving Network Support The Network Mobility (nemo) working group deals with the problem of mobility of a whole network, such as might exist inside a vehicle, train, or airplane. The nemo working group has developed draft specifications for both IPv6 and IPv4 mobile networks. However, it has been recognized that the IPv4 version of the protocol can be viewed as an extension of the basic Mobile IPv4 protocol, and there is good reason to do this extension in the mip4 working group. The working group will take on the MIPv4 network mobility internet draft and progress it along the standards track. In addition, the working group will take up extensions to the basic MIPv4 moving network support in the areas of dynamic prefix assignment and foreign agent support. 12. Asynchronous Notification Mechanism In some situations, there is a need for Mobile IPv4 entities, such as the home agent, foreign agent and mobile node to send and receive asynchronous notification events related to the operation of the MIPv4 protocol. A couple of examples of such events are registration revocation from a home agent to a foreign agent in order to terminate the service (to release resources and end charging), and notification of pending HA shutdown and indication of alternative serving HA, from a HA to the mobile node. The base Mobile IP Specification [RFC3344] does not have a provision for this. A new MIPv4 message pair which would support asynchronous notifications, and a notification model describing how to use these messages has been proposed. The working group will take on the existing MIPv4 notification message draft as a starting point, review and update it as needed, and progress it as a standards track document. In addition, the working group will also consider defining specific usages of the notification message based on the examples in the current document. Goals and Milestones: Done AAA Keys for MIPv4 to IESG Done MIPv4 VPN interaction problem statement to IESG Done Low latency handover to experimental Done Experimental MIPv4 message and extensions draft to IESG Done Dynamic Home Agent assignment protocol solution to IESG Done Revised MIPv4 Challenge/Response (3012bis) to IESG Done Regional registration document to IESG Jan 2007 MIPv4 Mobike interaction (BCP) to the IESG Feb 2007 MIPv4 Extension for Config. Options (Proposed Std.) to the IESG Dec 2006 MIPv4 VPN interaction (BCP) to the IESG May 2007 RADIUS Extensions for MIPv4 to the RADEXT WG for comment Jan 2007 Revised MIPv4 specification to IESG for Draft Std. Dec 2006 Generic Strings for MIPv4 (Proposed Std.) to the IESG Mar 2007 MIPv4 RADIUS Extensions Requirements to the IESG Dec 2006 FMIPv4 (Experimental) to the IESG Sep 2007 RADIUS Extensions for MIPv4 (Proposed Std.) to the IESG Nov 2007 Revised rfc2794bis (NAI extension) (Draft Std.) to the IESG Aug 2007 Revised MIB for MIPv4 (Proposed Std.) to IESG Apr 2007 Dual-stack MIPv4 (Draft Std.) to IESG Jul 2007 Notification Mechanism (Draft Std.) to IESG Sep 2007 Base MIPv4 Mobile Network Support (Draft Std.) to IESG Nov 2007 MIPv4 Mobile Network Support for FAs (Draft Std.) to IESG Nov 2007 MIPv4 Mobile Network Support Dynamic Address Assignment (Draft Std.) to IESG _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
