Mobility Support in 6LoWPAN

Network Working Group
Internet-Draft
Expires: May 14, 2008
Status of this Memo
M-K. Shin
ETRI
T. Camilo
J. Silva
University of Coimbra
D. Kaspar
ETRI
November 11, 2007
Mobility Support in 6LoWPAN

draft-shin-6lowpan-mobility-01
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 InternetDrafts.
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 May 14, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Shin, et al.
Expires May 14, 2008
[Page 1]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
Abstract
This draft lists mobility scenarios and suggests solutions of how to

provide mobility support in IPv6 Low-power Wireless Personal Area
Metworks (6LoWPANs).
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2. Terms Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Scenario Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. Device Movement within a Single WPAN Domain .
3.2. Device Movement between Multiple WPAN Domains
3.3. Single WPAN Movement (NEMO) . . . . . . . . .
3.4. MANEMO - Nested NEMO . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Mobility Support in 6LoWPAN . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Device Movement within a Single WPAN Domain .
4.2. Device Movement between Multiple WPAN DomainsS
4.3. Single WPAN movement (NEMO) . . . . . . . . .
4.4. MANEMO - Nested NEMO . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . .
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . .
Shin, et al.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
3
5
6
6
7
8
9
11
11
11
14
14
15
16
17
18
18
18
20
21
[Page 2]
Internet-Draft
1.
November 2007
Introduction
A 6LoWPAN is a simple low cost communication network that allows

wireless connectivity in applications with limited power and relaxed
throughput requirements. A 6LoWPAN typically includes devices that
work together to connect the physical environment to real-world
applications, e.g., wireless sensors [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-problem].
6LoWPANs must support various topologies like mesh as well as star.

Mesh topologies imply multi-hop routing, to a desired destination.
Mesh networks are likely to consist of nodes with a certain degree of
mobility. Due to the low performance characteristics of 6LoWPAN
devices, mobility support should be provided without high signaling
involvement in end devices (e.g., RFD). Also, as recently seen in
discussions related to MANEMO (Network mobility for MANET), a similar
point was stated regarding network mobility in LoWPAN environments.
Fast mobility detection will be a huge challenge and LoWPAN nodes
might even change their location while being in state of hibernation.
This document presents mobility scenarios and suggests solutions of
how to provide mobility support in 6LoWPANs.
1.1.
Requirements Notation
1.2.
Terms Used
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 [RFC2119].
o
Reduced-Function Device (RFD): RFDs are intended for applications

that are extremely simple, such as a light switch or a passive
infrared sensor; they can be implemented using minimal resources
and memory capacity. RFDs are not able to transmit MAC layer
beacons, and can only communicate with FFDs in a master/slave star
topology. RFDs may only associate with a single FFD at a time.
Full-Function Device (FFD): A device implementing the complete
protocol set. FFDs have the possibility to send MAC layer beacon
frames in order to indicate their presence to other FFDs or RFDs.
FFDs can talk to RFDs or other FFDs, while an RFD can talk only to
an FFD.
Coordinator-Function Device (CFD): A full-function device (FFD)
acting as the principal LoWPAN coordinator, configured to provide
synchronization services through the transmission of beacons. The
CFD is responsible for unique address allocation. A LoWPAN has
Shin, et al.
[Page 3]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
exactly one CFD.
Shin, et al.
[Page 4]
Internet-Draft
2.
November 2007
Goals
Given the unique low-performance properties of 6LoWPANs, new

challenges arise of enabling mobility support to devices with highly
reduced memory and power. It is therefore crucial to reduce the
additional mobility related signaling overhead or to possibly avoid
it altogether. Especially to optimize power consumption, batterypowered devices should be correctly discovered and handled by more
capable (and possibly mains-powered) devices in the network, such as
the CFD. The fundamental goals for mobility support in 6LoWPANs can
be listed as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Mobile 6LoWPAN devices must be addressable by any corresponding

node, independent of the current whereabouts.
RFDs should not be involved in any mobility related signaling.
Mobility related signaling for FFDs should be reduced, as much as

possible.
Fast handover detection should be supported.
Mobile 6LoWPAN devices should change their location while being in

state of hibernation.
Existing mobility protocols should be re-used, if possible.
Shin, et al.
[Page 5]
Internet-Draft
3.
November 2007
Scenario Considerations
Low-power WPAN technology is still in its early stage of development,

but the range of conceivable usage scenarios is tremendous. The
numerous possible applications of sensor networks make it obvious
that mesh topologies will be prevalent in LoWPAN environments and
mobility support will be a necessity.
Mobility based communication can also prolong the lifetime of devices
and increase the connectivity between nodes and clusters. Using
distributed LoWPANs (i.e. sensor networks), it is possible to sculpt
the devices density to cluster around areas of interest, cover large
areas, and work more efficiently by filtering local data at the node
level before it is transmitted or relayed peer-to-peer. Furthermore,
multiple controlled mobile elements can be used to provide load
balancing for gathering data. The required mobility is heavily
dependent on the individual service scenario and the LoWPAN
architecture. This document covers the following scenarios for
mobility support in 6LoWPAN.
Here are some of the key elements of an IEEE 802.15.4 network.
Figure 1 illustrates the key elements of typical mobile 802.15.4
deployments.
o Device movement within a single WPAN domain
o Device movement between multiple WPAN domains

o Single WPAN movement (NEMO)
o MANEMO (nested NEMO)
3.1.
Device Movement within a Single WPAN Domain
Device movement within a single WPAN domain comprehends the change of

location of one LoWPAN device without losing connectivity between the
CFD/sink-node. Different behaviours can be expected depending on the
type of topology used in the LoWPAN. In star topologies, where there
is a direct communication between the RFD/FFD and the CFD/sink-node
(single-hop), the communication is not affected by the device
mobility if the mobile device stays in the radio range of the CFD/
sink-node.
Shin, et al.
[Page 6]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
+----------------------------+
|
FFD
|
+----+
|
|CFD |
RFD
|
+----+
|
|
FFD
|
|
RFD
|
|
|
+----------------------------+
Figure 1: Device mobility within a single WPAN domain
In mesh topologies where the communication between the RFD/FFD and

the CFD/sink-node is multi-hop the mobility needs to be supported by
the routing protocol used within the LoWPAN. In this scenario it is
important to distinct the RFD/FFD mobility from the CFD/sink-node
mobility.
3.2.
Device Movement between Multiple WPAN Domains
In this scenario the LoWPAN devices move between different WPAN

domains as illustrated in the Fig. 2. By changing from the WPAN1
controlled by the CFD1 to the WPAN2 each device (e.g. RFD and FFD)
needs to advertise the CFD2 of its presence in order to receive new
interface configurations. Due to the 6LoWPAN devices characteristics
it is necessary to adjust exisiting IPv6 mobility protocol to such
networks. Moreover it is important to understand that RFD represents
several limitations regarding FFD, meaning that each one will have
different roles regarding the handover process.
+-----------------+
+------------------+
|
FFD
|
|
FFD
|
|
+----+
+----+
|
|
FFD
|CFD1|
|CFD2|
RFD
|
|
+----+
+----+
|
|
|
|
|
|
RFD >---------> RFD
|
|
FFD >---------> FFD
|
+-----------------+
+------------------+
WPAN1
WPAN2
Figure 2: Device mobility between multiple WPAN domains(1)
Another consideration should be made if the moving LoWPAN device is

the CFD1. In this case, such device will act as a CFD until he finds
another CFD responsible for a new domain. Fig. 3 illustrates the
situation when the sink-node (CFD1) moves from his domain to another
domain becoming a common FFD, after negotiating with CFD2. The
Shin, et al.
[Page 7]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
former domain of CFD1 will need to elect a new CFD, in the example
the CFD3.
+-----------------+
+------------------+
|
FFD
|
|
FFD
|
|
+----+
|
+----+
|
|
|CFD3|
|
|CFD2|
RFD
|
|
+----+
|
+----+
|
|
+----+
|
|
|
RFD
|CFD1|-------> FFD
|
|
+----+
|
|
+-----------------+
+------------------+
WPAN1
WPAN2
3.3.
Figure 3: Device mobility between multiple WPAN domains(2)
Single WPAN Movement (NEMO)
In this scenario we consider the aggregation of nodes (FFDs and RFDs)

in clusters, with the introduction of an elected node that will work
as a Coordinator Function Device (CFD). This node will be
responsible for the management of the cluster communication with the
external networks.
+----------------------------+
|
FFD
|
+----------+
+----+
|
| External |--- |CFD |
RFD
|
| Network |
+----+
|
+----------+
|
FFD
|
|
FFD
|
|
|
+----------------------------+
Figure 4: WPAN movement
In this section the WPAN is considered indivisible and presents

mobility as an entity. Moreover, we consider a mobile WPAN as a leaf
network, as it does not carry transit traffic.
The CFD must be a FFD, as it requires supplementary functionalities
when compared with RFDs, as extra processing and energy power. None
of the FFDs and RFDs behind the CFD need to be aware of the WPAN
mobility, being its movement completely transparent to those devices
inside the mobile WPAN. The protocols that support the WPAN movement
are very dependent of the following issues:
- Application requirements
Shin, et al.
[Page 8]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
- Level of mobility of WPAN
The level of mobility of the WPAN requires different routing updates.

It is crucial that the routing protocol optimizes the traffic routes
as the energy consumption is critical in node forwarding. Using the
CFD concept is possible to create an architecture that reduces the
energy consumed in WPAN movement, and thus increasing performance in
these networks.
The IPv6 [RFC2460] supports natively the mobility. Moreover, in
contrast with IPv4, IPv6 offers extra functionalities for router
optimization. However, it presents overheads and the routing is not
optimal in the case of network mobility. The Nemo working group
[RFC3963] that studies these scenarios, has already proposed a simple
solution to transparently solve, part of the present needs. However
the applicability to LowPAN networks is not trivial and requires
extra adaptability to its limited characteristics. The new
challenges in providing mobility for WPANs include resource
management, network coverage, network lifetime, topology change,
routing protocols, security, data reliability, QoS and timely
dissemination. These challenges affect the performance of the mobile
WPANs.
3.4.
MANEMO - Nested NEMO
In these scenarios, terminal devices or WPANs inside a WPAN could

present mobility support, travelling to other fixed or mobile WPANs.
These entities can move inside or outside high-level WPANs, forming
nested entities. Sink node mobility, as a unique entity, was
presented as a special case in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
+----------------------------+
|
FFD
|
+----------+
+----+
|
| Exterior |--- |CFD |
RFD
|
+----------+
+----+
|
|
FFD
|
|
FFD
+--------+
|
|
| WPAN |
|
+------+
|
+--------+
|
| WPAN |
|
RFD
|
+------+
+----------------------------+
Figure 5: MANEMO
In these scenarios, due to its properties, several issues need to be

covered (i.e. route optimization, bandwidth and encapsulation
Shin, et al.
[Page 9]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
overhead).
In nested networks - in more complex scenarios, the problems are more

accentuated and need several improvements and adaptations. Even if
we use the redirect IPv6 properties [RFC3775], there stills to exist
indirection and overhead, which is more critical when there are
several hierarchical levels.
Among the open research problems, real time solutions that result in
low mobile device speeds and cooperation between multiple mobile
devices stand out as challenges that have significant impact.
Shin, et al.
[Page 10]
Internet-Draft
4.
November 2007
In this section, some solutions and optimization techniques for each

scenario described in section 3 will be discussed.
4.1.
Device Movement within a Single WPAN Domain
In this scenario, there is no need to additionally define any new

mobility protocols. The mobility can be supported by the routing
protocol used within the 6LoWPAN. The first choice to achieve this
goal is to re-use existing MANET protocols without making any big
modifications. (e.g., AODV, OLSR, DYMO, etc.)
However, the modification or simplification of existing MANET routing

protocols may be required for dynamic routing to be feasible in a
LoWPAN domain, because other requirements apply to LoWPAN devices.
Unlike MANET devices, LoWPAN nodes are characterized by much lower
power supplies, smaller memory sizes, and lower processing power,
which create new challenges on obtaining robust and reliable dynamic
routing within LoWPANs.
There exists a trade-off relationship between routing effectiveness
and the requirements posed upon the devices participating in a
dynamic network. The challenge is to create a balance between
protocol simplicity and routing performance. But stripping down
existing protocols to power-aware, low-overhead protocols decreases
the efficacy and functionality of their sophisticated routing
techniques, or possibly even endangers the goals they were designed
for. The issues is being discussed now in [I-D.dokaspar-6lowpanroutreq].
The other way is to develop a new routing protocol for 6LoWPAN. The
work is also being discussed in [I-D.culler-rsn-routing-reqs] and is
especially focused on sensor networks (e.g., RL2N: Routing For Low
Power and Lossy Networks). Considering the variety of sensor based
applications, there may not be a single routing protocol satisfying
the entire list of requirements, in which case it may be decided to
define a limited set of routing protocols that could be combined to
satisfy the overall objective.
4.2.
Device Movement between Multiple WPAN DomainsS
In this scenario, MIPv6 [RFC3775] could be considered for mobility

solution. However, as listed in goals, RFDs should not to be
involved in any MIPv6 mobility related signaling and mobility
signaling messages in FFD should be reduced if possible.
To support efficiently this scenario, network-based mobility
Shin, et al.
[Page 11]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
management approach (e.g., Proxy MIPv6 [I-D.ietf-netlmm-proxymip6])

would be preferred.
The goals of network-based mobility management approach [RFC 4831]
are:
o
Handover Performance Improvement
Location Privacy
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Reduction in Handover-Related Signaling Volume

Limit Overhead in the Network
Simplify Mobile Node Mobility Management Security by Deriving from

IP Network Access and/or IP Movement Detection Security
Link Technology Agnostic
Support for Unmodified Mobile Nodes
Reuse of Existing Protocols Where Sensible
Localized Mobility Management Independent of Global Mobility

Management
Configurable Data Plane Forwarding between Local Mobility Anchor

and Mobile Access Gateway
Almost of the goal above fits to our goals for mobility support in
6LoWPAN described in section 2.
Host-based mobility protocols (e.g., MIPv6) require a number of

periodic signaling messages (e.g, Binding Update in MIPv6) at end
devices. It can increase power consumption. Network-based mobility
protocol (e.g., PMIPv6) does not require any mobility protocols in
end devices. Instead, gateway (CFD) performs mobility functions
(e.g., Proxy BU).
At this phase, current PMIPv6 defines the MN-MAG interface applied in

a single-hop [I-D.ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if]. However, in this scenario,
multi-hop and wireless mesh topologies should be additionnally
considered. So, to use PMIPv6 in 6LoWPAN, the interface for multihop and mesh topologies between devices and gateway (CFD) should be
extended and defined (e.g., ad-hoc manner, MANET, L2 routing, RL2N
support, etc.).
Thus, MN-MAG interface extensions for PMIPv6-6LoWPAN as shown in
Shin, et al.
[Page 12]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
Figure 6. It allows the MAG and/or 6LoWPAN devices to detect network

attachment and detachment and forward this detection to the gateway
(MAG) using existing MANET, RL2N or L2 (e,g, IEEE 802.15.4) routing,
causing the MAG to use the PMIPv6 protocol to update routing at the
LMA (Local Mobility Anchor) so that the end sensor node stays
reachable when it roams across the WPAN domain.
In general, in the absence of a L2 specific mechanisms to implement
the 6LoWPAN devices - MAG interface, it is required to have a common
interface defined at the L3 layer. Because no PMIPv6 specific
software support is assumed to be present on 6LoWPAN devices, this
interface has to rely only on standard tracks IPv6 protocols such as
ND, DHCP, SEND, and DNA. However, for the interface for multi-hop
and mesh topologies between devices and gateway (CFD) existing MANET,
RL2N or L2 (e,g, IEEE 802.15.4) routing should be applied.
6LoWPAN-MAG
Interface extension
|
|
+------------+
+----------+
|
|
|
|
|
| +--------+ |
| +------+ |
| | PMIPv6 |<-------->|PMIPv6| |
|
| +--------+ |
| +------+ |
|
^
^ |
|
^
|
+----------+
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
v
| |
|
|
|
| +------+ |
|
| +-----+ | |
|
|
|
| | MANET| |
| |MANET| | |
|
|
|
| | L2 Rt|<------|------>|L2 Rt| | |
|
|
|
| | RL2N | |
| |RL2N | | |
|
|
|
| +------+ |
| +-----+ | |
|
|
|
|
^
|
|
|
^
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
v
|
|
|
v
| |
|
v
|
| +------+ |
| +----+ | |
| +------+ |
| |
| |
|
| |
|<-+ |
| |
| |
| |
| |
IPv6
| |
|
| IPv6 | |
| |
| | IPv6 |<------|------>|IPv6|<------------>| IPv6 | |
| +------+ |
| +----+
|
| +------+ |
| 6LoWPAN |
|
|
|
|
|
| device |
|
MAG
|
|
LMA
|
+----------+
|
+------------+
+----------+
|
Figure 6: 6LoWPAN-MAG interface extensions

Shin, et al.
[Page 13]
Internet-Draft
4.3.
November 2007
Single WPAN movement (NEMO)
This scenario is exactly the same as that of NEMO. NEMO support

[I-D.ietf-nemo-requirements] is concerned with managing the mobility
of an entire network, viewed as a single unit, which changes its
point of attachment to the Internet and thus its reachability in the
Internet topology. Such a network is referred to as a mobile network
and includes one or more mobile routers (MRs) which connect it to the
global Internet. So, in this scenario a mobility network and MRs are
mapped into WPAN and CFDs, respectively.
To support this scenario, basic NEMO support protocol [RFC3963]
should be supported in 6LoWPAN.
4.4.
MANEMO - Nested NEMO
MANEMO is a special case for Nested NEMO. When mobile routers (CFDs)
and mobile nodes (RFDs/FFDs) converge at the edge of the Internet
using wireless interfaces, they can form a 6LoWPAN network in an adhoc fashion and are able to provide Internet connectivity to one
another. Several issues exist in this network configuration such as
network loop, un-optimized path and multiple exit routers to the
Internet. They are well-known MANEMO' issues. While fixed routers
provide constantly connectivity, mobile routers (CFDs) can experience
intermittent connectivity to the Internet due to their movement.
When NEMO Basic Support [RFC3963] is used in this context, network
loops naturally occur. So, a new MANEMO solution is required in
6LoWPAN.
MANEMO solution is not finalized yet and it is at initial stage.
When it is done, to support this scenario, it should be also
supported in 6LoWPAN.
Shin, et al.
[Page 14]
Internet-Draft
5.
November 2007
IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
Shin, et al.
[Page 15]
Internet-Draft
6.
November 2007
Security Considerations
RFD nodes must have

distinguishing them
mobility support is
for the RFD to tell
or not.
a means of identifying friendly nodes and

from not trusted nodes. Especially if the RFDs'
handled by an FFD or CFD, there must be some way
whether that more capable device can be trusted
More to be defined.
Shin, et al.
[Page 16]
Internet-Draft
7.
November 2007
Acknowledgements
TBD
Shin, et al.
[Page 17]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119]
[RFC2460]
[RFC3756]
[RFC3775]
[RFC3963]
8.2.
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6

(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756,
May 2004.
Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support

in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.

Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005.
Informative References
[RFC4831]
[RFC4886]
[RFC4919]
Kempf, J., "Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility

Management (NETLMM)", RFC 4831, April 2007.
Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and
Requirements", RFC 4886, July 2007.
Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6

over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
RFC 4919, August 2007.
[I-D.dokaspar-6lowpan-routreq]
Kaspar, D., "Problem Statement, Design Goals and
Requirements for 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing",
draft-dokaspar-6lowpan-routreq-02 (work in progress),
July 2007.
[I-D.ietf-netlmm-proxymip6]
Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-07 (work in progress),
November 2007.
[I-D.chakrabarti-mobopts-lowpan-req]
Park, S. and S. Chakrabarti, "LowPan Mobility Requirements
Shin, et al.
[Page 18]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
and Goals", draft-chakrabarti-mobopts-lowpan-req-01 (work

in progress), March 2007.
[I-D.ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if]
Narayanan, S. and J. Laganier, "Network-based Localized
Mobility Management Interface between Mobile Node and
Mobility Access Gateway", draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-02
(work in progress), May 2007.
Shin, et al.
[Page 19]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
Authors' Addresses
Myung-Ki Shin
ETRI
161 Gajeong-dong Yuseng-gu
Daejeon, 305-350
Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 4847

Email: myungki.shin@gmail.com
Tiago Camilo
Email: tandre@dei.uc.pt
Jorge Sa Silva
Email: sasilva@dei.uc.pt
Dominik Kaspar
ETRI
161 Gajeong-dong Yuseng-gu
Daejeon, 305-350
Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 1702
Email: dominik@etri.re.kr
Shin, et al.
[Page 20]
Internet-Draft
November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions

contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any

Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF

Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Shin, et al.
[Page 21]

Mobility Support in 6LoWPAN

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mobility Support in 6LoWPAN

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Network Working Group

Status of this Memo