RFC 5164: Mobility Services Transport: Problem Statement
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
There are ongoing activities in the networking community to develop solutions that aid in IP handover mechanisms between heterogeneous wired and wireless access systems including, but not limited to, IEEE 802.21. Intelligent access selection, taking into account link-layer attributes, requires the delivery of a variety of different information types to the terminal from different sources within the network and vice-versa. The protocol requirements for this signalling have both transport and security issues that must be considered. The signalling must not be constrained to specific link types, so there is at least a common component to the signalling problem, which is within the scope of the IETF. This document presents a problem statement for this core problem. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5164
- Published
- March 2008
- Authors
- T. Melia
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 16
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5172Negotiation for IPv6 Datagram Compression Using IPv6 Control ProtocolCurrent
March 2008
- RFC 5155DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of ExistenceUpdated
March 2008
- RFC 5154IP over IEEE 802.16 Problem Statement and GoalsCurrent
April 2008
- RFC 5175IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags OptionCurrent
March 2008
- RFC 5177Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4Updated
April 2008
- RFC 5142Mobility Header Home Agent Switch MessageCurrent
January 2008
- RFC 5186Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) / Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) and Multicast Routing Protocol InteractionCurrent
May 2008
- RFC 5191Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA)Updated
May 2008
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?