doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2005.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2005.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..121db85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2005.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         J. Solomon
+Request for Comments: 2005                                      Motorola
+Category: Standards Track                                   October 1996
+
+
+            Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+   As required by [RFC 1264], this report discusses the applicability of
+   Mobile IP to provide host mobility in the Internet.  In particular,
+   this document describes the key features of Mobile IP and shows how
+   the requirements for advancement to Proposed Standard RFC have been
+   satisfied.
+
+1. Protocol Overview
+
+   Mobile IP provides an efficient, scalable mechanism for node mobility
+   within the Internet.  Using Mobile IP, nodes may change their point-
+   of-attachment to the Internet without changing their IP address.
+   This allows them to maintain transport and higher-layer connections
+   while moving.  Node mobility is realized without the need to
+   propagate host-specific routes throughout the Internet routing
+   fabric.  The protocol is documented in [MIP-PROTO].
+
+   In brief, Mobile IP routing works as follows.  Packets destined to a
+   mobile node are routed first to its home network -- a network
+   identified by the network prefix of the mobile node's (permanent)
+   home address.  At the home network, the mobile node's home agent
+   intercepts such packets and tunnels them to the mobile node's most
+   recently reported care-of address.  At the endpoint of the tunnel,
+   the inner packets are decapsulated and delivered to the mobile node.
+   In the reverse direction, packets sourced by mobile nodes are routed
+   to their destination using standard IP routing mechanisms.
+
+   Thus, Mobile IP relies on protocol tunneling to deliver packets to
+   mobile nodes that are away from their home network.  The mobile
+   node's home address is hidden from routers along the path from the
+   home agent to the mobile node due to the presence of the tunnel.  The
+   encapsulating packet is destined to the mobile node's care-of address
+
+
+
+Solomon                     Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2005           Mobile IP Applicability Statement        October 1996
+
+
+   -- a topologically significant address -- to which standard IP
+   routing mechanisms can deliver packets.
+
+   The Mobile IP protocol defines the following:
+
+   - an authenticated registration procedure by which a mobile node
+     informs its home agent(s) of its care-of address(es);
+
+   - an extension to ICMP Router Discovery [RFC1256] which allows mobile
+     nodes to discover prospective home agents and foreign agents; and
+
+   - the rules for routing packets to and from mobile nodes, including
+     the specification of one mandatory tunneling mechanism ([MIP-IPinIP])
+     and several optional tunneling mechanisms ([MIP-MINENC] and
+     [RFC1701]).
+
+2. Applicability
+
+   Mobile IP is intended to solve node mobility across changes in IP
+   subnet.  It is just as suitable for mobility across homogeneous media
+   as it is for mobility across heterogeneous media.  That is, Mobile IP
+   facilitates node movement from one Ethernet segment to another as
+   well as it accommodates node movement from an Ethernet segment to a
+   wireless LAN.
+
+   One can think of Mobile IP as solving the "macro" mobility management
+   problem.  It is less well suited for more "micro" mobility management
+   applications -- for example, handoff amongst wireless transceivers,
+   each of which covers only a very small geographic area.  In this
+   later situation, link-layer mechanisms for link maintenance (i.e.
+   link-layer handoff) might offer faster convergence and less overhead
+   than Mobile IP.
+
+   Mobile IP scales to handle a large number of mobile nodes in the
+   Internet.  Without route optimization as described in [MIP-OPTIM],
+   however, the home agent is a potential load point when serving many
+   mobile nodes.  When home agents become overburdened, additional home
+   agents can be added -- and even dynamically discovered by mobile
+   nodes -- using mechanisms defined in the Mobile IP documents.
+
+   Finally, it is noted that mobile nodes are assigned (home) IP
+   addresses largely the same way in which stationary hosts are assigned
+   long-term IP addresses; namely, by the authority who owns them.
+   Properly applied, Mobile IP allows mobile nodes to communicate using
+   only their home address regardless of their current location.  Mobile
+   IP, therefore, makes no attempt to solve the problems related to
+   local or global, IP address, renumbering.
+
+
+
+
+Solomon                     Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2005           Mobile IP Applicability Statement        October 1996
+
+
+3. Security
+
+   Mobile IP mandates the use of cryptographically strong authentication
+   for all registration messages exchanged between a mobile node and its
+   home agent.  Optionally, strong authentication can be used between
+   foreign agents and mobile nodes or home agents.  Replay protection is
+   realized via one of two possible mechanisms -- timestamps or nonces.
+
+   Due to the unavailability of an Internet key management protocol,
+   agent discovery messages are not required to be authenticated.
+
+   All Mobile IP implementations are required to support, at a minimum,
+   keyed MD5 authentication with manual key distribution.  Other
+   authentication and key distribution algorithms may be supported.
+
+   Mobile IP defines security mechanisms only for the registration
+   protocol.  Implementations requiring privacy and/or authentication of
+   data packets sent to and from a mobile node should use the IP
+   security protocols described in RFCs 1827 and 1826 for this purpose.
+
+4. MIB
+
+   At the time of publication of this Applicability Statement, a
+   Management Information Base (MIB) for Mobile IP has been written and
+   documented in RFC 2006.
+
+5. Implementations
+
+   Several implementations of Mobile IP are known to exist.  The
+   following list gives the origin and a contact for several such
+   implementations:
+
+      Organization:   Contact:
+
+      CMU             Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu>
+      FTP Software    Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
+      IBM             Charlie Perkins <perk@watson.ibm.com>
+      Motorola        Jim Solomon <solomon@comm.mot.com>
+      Nokia           Gunyho Gabor <gunyho@ncsmsg07he.ntc.nokia.com>
+      SUN             Gabriel Montenegro <gab@cali.Eng.Sun.COM>
+      Telxon          Frank Ciotti <frankc@teleng.eng.telxon.com>
+
+6. Implementation Experience
+
+   FTP Software hosted an interim meeting, October 23-27, 1995 in which
+   interoperability of several implementations was demonstrated.  The
+   following major features of the Mobile IP protocol were tested:
+
+
+
+
+Solomon                     Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2005           Mobile IP Applicability Statement        October 1996
+
+
+   1)  Mobile Nodes receiving and processing Agent Advertisements.
+   2)  Agents receiving Agent Solicitations and responding with Agent
+       Advertisements.
+   3)  Mobile Nodes registering with foreign agents on foreign networks.
+   4)  Packets being received by the mobile node after having been
+       tunneled by the home agent and de-tunneled by the foreign agent.
+   5)  Packets from the mobile node being routed directly to their
+       destinations.
+   6)  Mobile nodes discovering that their connectivity/subnet had
+       changed and re-registering at their new location.
+   7)  Mobile nodes discovering that their current foreign agent had
+       rebooted and therefore re-registering with that foreign agent.
+   8)  The required form of tunneling (IP-in-IP encapsulation
+       [MIP-IPinIP]) as well as the one of the optional forms of tunneling;
+       namely, Minimal Encapsulation [MIP-MINENC].
+   9)  Mobile nodes de-registering upon returning to their home network.
+   10) Registrations being rejected for authentication failures,
+       including invalid authenticators as well as mismatched
+       identification values (replay protection).
+   11) TCP connections remaining open (with data flowing) while a mobile
+       node moved from its home network to a foreign network and then
+       back again to the home network.
+
+   Interoperability of at least two independent implementations was
+   demonstrated for all of the features listed above.
+
+7. Summary
+
+   The co-chairs, on behalf of the working group participants, believe
+   that the Mobile IP working group has satisfied the requirements set
+   forth in [RFC1264] for the advancement of Mobile IP to Proposed
+   Standard RFC.  Specifically, the technical specification document is
+   stable, a MIB has been written, the security architecture has been
+   set forth in accordance with IAB principles, and several independent
+   implementations have been demonstrated to be interoperable.
+
+8. References
+
+   [RFC1256] Deering, S., Editor, "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC
+      1256, September 1991.
+
+   [RFC1701] Hanks, S. et. al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)",
+      RFC 1701, October 1994.
+
+   [RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Routing Protocol Standardization
+      Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991.
+
+
+
+
+
+Solomon                     Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2005           Mobile IP Applicability Statement        October 1996
+
+
+   [MIP-IPinIP] Perkins, C., Editor, "IP Encapsulation within IP",
+      RFC 2003, October 1996.
+
+   [MIP-OPTIM] Johnson, D., and C. Perkins, "Route Optimization in
+      Mobile IP", Work in Progress.
+
+   [MIP-PROTO] Perkins, C., Editor, "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002,
+      October 1996.
+
+   [MIP-MINENC] Perkins, C., Editor, "Minimal Encapsulation within IP",
+      RFC 2004, October 1994.
+
+9. Author's Address
+
+   Questions about this memo can be directed to:
+
+   Jim Solomon
+   Motorola Inc.
+   1301 E. Algonquin Rd. - Rm 2240
+   Schaumburg, IL  60196
+
+   Voice:  +1-847-576-2753
+   Fax:    +1-847-576-3240
+   EMail: solomon@comm.mot.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Solomon                     Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+