Internet DRAFT - draft-guri-seamoby-conflahap
draft-guri-seamoby-conflahap
Seamoby Working Group B. Sarikaya
Internet Draft S. Gurivireddy
Document:draft-guri-seamoby-conflahap-00.txt A. Krywaniuk
Category: Standards track Alcatel
September 2001
Conformity Statement of Layer-2 aided mobility independent dormant host
alerting protocol to RFC 3154
draft-guri-seamoby-conflahap-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document states the conformity of Layer-2 aided mobility
independent dormant host alerting protocol I-D to RFC 3154 on
Requirements and Functional Architecture for an IP Host Alerting
Protocol. It is stated to which clauses lahap fully conforms and to
which clauses close to full conformance is claimed.
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo............................................1
Abstract.......................................................1
Table of Contents..............................................2
1. Introduction................................................2
2. Terms.......................................................2
3. Where we claim full conformity..............................3
4. Where conformity can be easily achieved.....................4
5. References..................................................4
Gurivireddy,Sarikaya, Krywaniuk 1
Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001
6 Authors' Addresses....................... . ................5
Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 2
Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001
1. Introduction
RFC 3154 [1] states the requirements and attempts to define a
functional architecture for an IP Host Alerting Protocol. The authors
of this I-D have submitted an I-D, Layer-2 aided mobility independent
dormant host alerting protocol [2] which defines an IP host alerting
protocol. In this draft we discuss the clauses where lahap conforms
to [1] and where the conformity can easily be achieved. There seems
to be no clauses where the conformity to [1] could not be claimed.
2. Terms
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 [3].
Please see [4] for definition of terms used in describing paging. In
addition, [2] defined several terms.
3. Where we claim full conformity
The clauses on security, in particular clauses in Section 3.1, 3.2
and 3.3.
4.1 on power consumption by relying on L2 paging where available the
need to establish L3 connection is eliminated.
4.3 on control of Broadcast/Multicast/Anycast. lahap additionaly has
provisions to support more dormant mode options.
4.4. On Inactive mode: The protocol as support for inactive mode.
Protocl detects as soon as host enters inactive mode and sends
ICMP_HOST_UNREACHABLE message back to the node trying to connect to
HOST.
4.5 on no mobile routers.
4.7 on independence of mobility protocols. Lahap is completely
independent of any mobility protocol.
4.9 on dormant mode termination.
4.10 on network updates. Lahap efficiently supports the moving of the
dormant hosts in paging areas. This is clearly explained in Section
3.1.1 of [2].
4.11 on Efficient Utilization of L2. Lahap makes maximum use of L2
dormant mode support if available.
4.12 on Orthogonality of Paging Area and Subnets and 4.13 on future
L3 paging support. Lahap allows both Layer 3 and Layer 2 paging areas.
It defines protocol operation distinctively under L3 paging areas or
under L2 paging areas to be used based on availability.
4.15 on Reliability of Packet Delivery and 4.16 on Robustness
Against Message Loss. Lahap achieves reliability and robustness by
acknowledging all the messages in the network layer. In appropriate
scenarios, messages are retransmitted. Lahap uses IPv6 and ICMPv6
datagrams. Every message has a corresponding reply and this is how
reliability and robustness can be achieved.
Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 3
Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001
4.18 on Flexibility of Paging Area Design. Lahap allows maximum
flexibility on the paging areas. The (L2 or L3) paging areas can even
be dynamic.
4.19 Availability of Security Support : last section of the draft
deals with security issues. Lahap has the security support as
required. Section 6 in [2] gives a detailed explaination of
the security support.
4.20 Through 4.22 on authentication support. [2] uses IPsec which
provides the authentication.
Clauses in Section 5 of [1] on functional architecture. We claim full
conformance to Section 5. All the entities are used and the messaging
structure is as in Section 5.
4. Where conformity can be easily achieved
Clause 4.6 on multiple dormant modes.
4.2 on scalability. The dormant mode hosts state is only kept at DMA
4.14 on Robustness Against Failure of Network Elements.
4.17 on Flexibility of Administration.
4.23 on Paging Volume. Presently Lahap handles each paging request
per host separately. If the volume is high it may help in handling
several paging requests together. Future revisions of [2] will
conform to this clause fully.
4.8 on support for mobility protocols. Lahap is not based on any
mobility protocols. Hooks to a protocol that extends Mobile IPv6 with
paging can easily be made. For example DMA can be collocated with the
home agent of MIPv6.
5. References
1 Kempf, J., et al. "Requirements and Functional Architecture for an
IP Host Alerting Protocol", RFC 3154, August 2001.
2 Gurivireddy, S., Sarikaya, B., Krywaniuk, A., " Layer-2 aided
mobility independent dormant host alerting protocol", draft-guri-
seamoby-lahap-00.txt, September 2001, work-in-progress.
3 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
7. Author's Addresses
The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
Pat R. Calhoun
Black Storm Networks
250 Cambridge Avenue
Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 4
Lahap Conformance Statement September 2001
USA
Tel. 1-650-617-2932
Email: pcalhoun@btormnetworks.com
Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
Sridhar Gurivireddy,
Network Strategic Group, Mobile Networking team
Alcatel USA
1201 E.Campbell Rd. M/S CT02
Richardson, TX 75081-1536 USA
E-mail: sridhar.gurivireddy@alcatel.com
Phone: (972) 996.2048
Behcet Sarikaya
Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team
Alcatel USA M/S CTO2
1201 E. Campbell Rd.
Richardson, TX 75081-1936 USA
Email: behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com
Phone: (972) 996-5075 Fax: (972) 996 5174
Andrew Krywaniuk
Alcatel Networks Corporation
600 March Road
Kanata, ON
Canada, K2K 2E6
+1 (613) 784-4237
E-mail: andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com
Gurivireddy, Sarikaya,Krywaniuk Expires March 2002 5
