Charles E. Perkins
David B. Johnson
- 1.Randall ~ktkinson. IP Authentication header, lnternet Request For Comments RFC 1826, August 1995.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.Randall ,Mkinson. Security architecture for the Intemet Protocol, hlternet Request For Comments RFC 1825, August 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 3.Ashar A::iz, Tom Markson, and Hemma Prafullchandra. Sim- Draft, d:'aft-ietf-ipsec-skip-07.txt, August 1996. Work in progress.]]Google Scholar
- 4.Jim Bomld and Charles Perkins. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6). Internet-Draft, draft-ietf..dhcdhcpv6-{}7, txt, August 1996. Work in progress.]]Google Scholar
- 5.Alex Co lta and Stephen Deering. lnternet Control Me,;sage Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Intemet Protocol version 6 (lPv6) specification. Intemet Request For Comments RFC 1.885, Decemb,~r 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 6.Alex Conta and Stephen Deering. Generic packet tunneling in IPv6 specification. Intemet-Draft, draft-ietf-ipngwg-!ipv6- tunnel-02.txt, June 1996. Work in progress.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 7.Stephen E. Deering. ICMP router discovery messages. Internet Request For Comments RFC 1256, September 1991.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8.Stephen E. Deering and Robert M. Hinden. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) specification. Internet Request For Comments RFC 1883, December 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.Dimitry Haskin and Ed Allen. IP version 6 over PPP. lnternet-Draft, draft-ieff-ipngwg-pppext-ipv6cp-03.txt, May 1996. Work in progress.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 10.IEEE. Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical layer (PHY) specifications. Draft Standard 802. ! 1 D2.0, July 1995.]]Google Scholar
- 11.IETF Secretariat and Gary Malkin. The Tao of IETF. Internet Request For Comments RFC 1718, November 1994.]]Google Scholar
- 12.Internet Architecture Board and Internet Engineering Steering Group. The Internet standards process--Revision 2. Internet Request For Comments RFC 1602, March 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13.David B. Johnson and Charles Perkins. Mobility support in IPv6. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-01.txt, June 1996. Work in progress.]]Google Scholar
- 14.David B. Johnson and Charles Perkins. Route optimization in Mobile IP. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-04.txt, February 1996. Work in progress.]]Google Scholar
- 15.Phil Karn and William Allen Simpson. The Photuris session key management protocol. Internet-Draft, draft-simpsonphoturis-11.txt, June 1996. Work in progress.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16.Hugo Krawczyk, Mihir Bellare, and Ran Canetti. HMAC- MDS: Keyed-MD5 for message authentication. Internet- Draft, draft-ietf-ipsec-hmac-mdS-00.txt, March 1996. Work in progress.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.Douglas Maughan, Mark Schertler, Mark Schneider, and Jeff Turner. Intemet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP). lnternet-Draft, draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp- 05.txt, June 1996. Work in progress.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18.Perry Metzger and William Allen Simpson. IP authentication using keyed MDS. Internet Request For Comments RFC 1828, August 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19.Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, and William Allen Simpson. Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6). Internet Request For Comments RFC 1970, August 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20.Michael J. Oehler and Robert Glenn. HMAC-MD5 IP authentication with replay prevention. Internet-Draft, draft-ietfipsec-ah-hmac-md5-02.txt, August 1996. Work in progress.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21.H. K. Orman. The OAKLEY key determination protocol. Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ipsec-oakley-01.txt, May 1996. Work in progress.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 22.Charles Perkins, editor. IP mobility support. Internet- Draft, draft-ietf-mobileip-protocol-17.txt, May 1996. Work in progress.]]Google Scholar
- 23.David C. Plummer. An Ethernet address resolution protocol: Or converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet addresses for transmission on Ethernet hardware. Internet Request For Comments RFC 826, November 1982.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 24.J. B. Postel. User Datagram Protocol. Internet Request For Comments RFC 768, August 1980.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 25.J.B. Postel, editor. Internet Control Message Protocol. Internet Request For Comments RFC 792, September 1981.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 26.J. B. Postel, editor. Internet Protocol. Interact Request For Comments RFC 791, September 1981.]]Google Scholar
- 27.J. B. Postel, editor. Transmission Control Protocol. Internet Request For Comments RFC 793, September 1981.]]Google Scholar
- 28.Ronald L. Rivest. The MD5 message-digest algorithm. Internet Request For Comments RFC 1321, April 1992.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 29.Fumio Teraoka. Mobility support in IPv6. Internet-Draft, draft-teraoka-ipv6-mobility-sup-03.txt, April 1996. Work in progress.]]Google Scholar
- 30.Susan Thomson and Thomas Narten. IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration. Intemet Request For Comments RFC 1971, August 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Mobility support in IPv6
Recommendations
Mobility Support for IPv6-based Next Generation Wireless Networks: A Survey of Related Protocols
This paper presents an overview of IPv6-based mobility management protocols: mobile IPv6 MIPv6, fast handovers for mobile IPv6 FMIPv6, hierarchical mobile IPv6 HMIPv6, and fast handover for hierarchical mobile IPv6 F-HMIPv6. All these protocols play an ...
Inter-domain mobility support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 using overlap function of mobile access gateway
In a single local mobility domain of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) the mobile node (MN) uses only its PMIPv6 home address for all its communication. When the MN moves into another domain, the MN must change its PMIPv6 home address and host-based mobility ...
Mobility in IPv6: Whether and How to Hierarchize the Network?
Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) offers a basic solution to support mobility in IPv6 networks. Although Hierarchical MIPv6 (HMIPv6) has been designed to enhance the performance of MIPv6 by hierarchizing the network, it does not always outperform MIPv6. In fact, two ...
Comments