Network Working Group P. Thubert
Request for Comments: 4887 Cisco Systems
Category: Informational R. Wakikawa
Keio University and WIDE
V. Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
July 2007
Network Working Group P. Thubert
Request for Comments: 4887 Cisco Systems
Category: Informational R. Wakikawa
Keio University and WIDE
V. Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
July 2007
Network Mobility Home Network Models
网络移动性家庭网络模型
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。
Abstract
摘要
This paper documents some of the usage patterns and the associated issues when deploying a Home Network for Network Mobility (NEMO)- enabled Mobile Routers, conforming to the NEMO Basic Support. The aim here is specifically to provide some examples of organization of the Home Network, as they were discussed in NEMO-related mailing lists.
本文记录了在部署支持网络移动性（NEMO）的家庭网络（Home Network for Network Mobility，NEMO）移动路由器时，符合NEMO基本支持的一些使用模式和相关问题。这里的目的是提供一些家庭网络组织的示例，正如NEMO相关邮件列表中所讨论的那样。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. General Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. MIP Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. NEMO Extended Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Home Address from MNP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Deployment Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4.1. Mobile Router Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. NEMO Aggregated Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Returning Home with the Egress Interface . . . . . . . 10
6.2.2. Returning Home with the Ingress Interface . . . . . . 10
6.3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Deployment Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4.1. Home Agent Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4.2. Mobile Router Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. NEMO Virtual Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. NEMO Mobile Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. General Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. MIP Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. NEMO Extended Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Home Address from MNP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Deployment Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4.1. Mobile Router Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. NEMO Aggregated Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Returning Home with the Egress Interface . . . . . . . 10
6.2.2. Returning Home with the Ingress Interface . . . . . . 10
6.3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Deployment Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4.1. Home Agent Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4.2. Mobile Router Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. NEMO Virtual Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. NEMO Mobile Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
This document assumes that the reader is familiar with IPv6 Mobility as defined by Mobile IPv6 and the Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support. In order to read this document properly, it is important to realize that in NEMO, the Home Network can encompass much more than the Home Link, as it spans the Home Link and all the Links that the Mobile Routers (MRs) carry with them. Exactly how the two concepts relate in a given deployment depends on the organization of the Home Network, as described below.
本文档假设读者熟悉移动IPv6定义的IPv6移动性和网络移动性（NEMO）基本支持。为了正确阅读本文件，必须认识到，在NEMO中，家庭网络可以包含远不止家庭链路，因为它跨越家庭链路以及移动路由器（MRs）携带的所有链路。这两个概念在给定部署中的具体关系取决于家庭网络的组织，如下所述。
Five different organizations of the Home Network including a hierarchical construction are documented:
记录了家庭网络的五种不同组织，包括分层结构：
MIPv6 Home Network: A short reminder of what the Home Network is with Mobile IP, in order to help the reader figure out the evolution toward NEMO.
MIPv6家庭网络：家庭网络与移动IP的简短提示，以帮助读者了解NEMO的演变。
NEMO Extended Home Network: In this arrangement, the Home Network is only one subnet of a larger aggregation that encompasses the Mobile Networks, called Extended Home Network. When at home, a Mobile Router performs normal routing between the Home Link and the Mobile Networks. More in Section 5.
NEMO扩展家庭网络：在这种安排中，家庭网络只是包含移动网络的更大聚合的一个子网，称为扩展家庭网络。在家时，移动路由器在家链路和移动网络之间执行正常路由。更多信息请参见第5节。
NEMO Aggregated Home Network: In this arrangement, the Home Network actually overlaps with the Mobile Networks. When at home, a Mobile Router acts as a bridge between the Home Link and the Mobile Networks. More in Section 6.
NEMO聚合家庭网络：在这种安排中，家庭网络实际上与移动网络重叠。在家时，移动路由器充当家庭链路和移动网络之间的桥梁。更多信息请参见第6节。
Virtual Home Network: In this arrangement, there is no physical Home Link at all for the Mobile Routers to come back home to. More in Section 7.
虚拟家庭网络：在这种安排下，移动路由器根本没有物理家庭链路可以回到家中。更多信息请参见第7节。
NEMO Mobile Home Network: In this arrangement, there is a bitwise hierarchy of Home Networks. A global Home Network is advertised to the infrastructure by a head Home Agent (HA) and further subnetted into Mobile Networks. Each subnet is owned by a Mobile Router that registers it in a NEMO fashion while acting as a Home Agent for that network. More in Section 8.
NEMO移动家庭网络：在这种安排中，家庭网络有一个按位的层次结构。全球家庭网络由主家庭代理（HA）向基础设施发布广告，并进一步子网化到移动网络中。每个子网都由一个移动路由器拥有，该路由器以NEMO方式注册它，同时充当该网络的归属代理。更多信息请参见第8节。
In all cases, the Home Agents collectively advertise only the aggregation of the Mobile Networks. The subnetting is kept within the Home Agents and the Mobile Routers, as opposed to advertised by means of routing protocols to other parties.
在所有情况下，归属代理仅集体宣传移动网络的聚合。子网保持在归属代理和移动路由器内，而不是通过路由协议向其他方公布。
The examples provided here aim at illustrating the NEMO Basic Support [5] but do not aim at limiting its scope of application; additional cases may be added in the future.
此处提供的示例旨在说明NEMO基本支持[5]，但不旨在限制其应用范围；将来可能会添加其他案例。
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 [2].
本文件中的关键词必须、不得、要求、应、不应、应、不应、建议、可和可选应按照RFC 2119[2]中的说明进行解释。
Most of the mobility-related terms used in this document are defined in the Mobility Related Terminology document [3] and in the Mobile IPv6 (MIP6) specification [4].
本文档中使用的大多数移动相关术语在移动相关术语文档[3]和移动IPv6（MIP6）规范[4]中定义。
In addition, some terms were created or extended for NEMO. These specific terms are defined in the Mobile Network Terminology document [6]:
此外，还为NEMO创建或扩展了一些术语。这些特定术语在移动网络术语文档[6]中定义：
Home Link
主链接
Home Network
家庭网络
Home Address
家庭住址
MRHA Tunnel
MRHA隧道
Mobile Aggregated Prefix
移动聚合前缀
Aggregated Home Network
聚合家庭网络
Extended Home Network
扩展家庭网络
Virtual Home Network
虚拟家庭网络
Mobile Home Network
移动家庭网络
With Mobile IPv6, the Home Network is generally a physical network interconnecting the Home Agents and the Mobile Nodes that are at home. NEMO extends the concept of home so that it is not only a flat subnet composed of Home Addresses but an aggregation that is itself subnetted in Mobile and Home Networks. This aggregation is still referred to as home.
对于移动IPv6，家庭网络通常是一个物理网络，将家庭代理和家庭中的移动节点互连。NEMO扩展了家庭的概念，使其不仅是由家庭地址组成的平面子网，而且是在移动和家庭网络中自身子网的聚合。此聚合仍然称为“主”。
As an example, consider the case where the aggregation has a global routing prefix of m = 48 bits (A:B:C::/48), with a subnet ID size of n = 16 bits (n + m = 64):
作为一个例子，考虑聚合具有M＝48位（A:B:C::/ 48）的全局路由前缀的情况，其中子网ID大小为N＝16位（N+M＝64）：
When a Mobile Router, MR1, uses the Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) A:B: C:1::/64 with the NEMO Basic Support, MR1 may register using a Home Address from the Home network (i.e., A:B:C:0::1) or a Home Address from one of its MNPs (i.e., A:B:C:1::1) depending on the deployment.
当移动路由器MR1在NEMO基本支持下使用移动网络前缀（MNP）a:B:C:1:：/64时，MR1可以根据部署使用来自家庭网络的家庭地址（即a:B:C:0:：1）或来自其MNP之一（即a:B:C:1:：1）的家庭地址进行注册。
In a given deployment, one subnet may be reserved for the Home Link (A:B:C:0::/64) while the others are attributed to Mobile Routers as Mobile Networks (as A:B:C:1::/64 for MR1). Another approach could be to configure the aggregation of Mobile Networks as the subnet on the Home Link, and let the Mobile Routers manage the overlapping networks. Finally, the aggregation could be configured on a virtual network, with no physical Home Link at all, in which case home means topologically and administratively close to the Home Agent that advertises the virtual network.
在给定的部署中，一个子网可能会保留给主链路（a:B:C:0:：/64），而其他子网则作为移动网络归属于移动路由器（对于MR1，作为a:B:C:1:：/64）。另一种方法是将移动网络的聚合配置为家庭链路上的子网，并让移动路由器管理重叠的网络。最后，可以在虚拟网络上配置聚合，根本没有物理归属链路，在这种情况下，归属意味着在拓扑上和管理上靠近播发虚拟网络的归属代理。
The following sections provide additional information on these forms of Home Network.
以下各节提供了有关这些家庭网络形式的附加信息。
In the Mobile IPv6 (MIP6) specification [4], Mobile Nodes are at home when they are connected to their Home Link, where they recognize their Home Prefix in Router Advertisement messages. Also, a binding is checked using Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) on the Home Link, and Home Agents discover each other by means of Neighbor Discovery (ND) extensions over that link.
在移动IPv6（MIP6）规范[4]中，当移动节点连接到其家庭链路时，它们在家中，在路由器广告消息中识别其家庭前缀。此外，在主链路上使用重复地址检测（DAD）检查绑定，并且主代理通过该链路上的邻居发现（ND）扩展相互发现。
The Home Prefix that is advertized on the Home Link is a final prefix, as opposed to an aggregation, and it may be used by hosts on the Home Link for autoconfiguration purposes.
在主链接上播发的主前缀是最终前缀，与聚合相反，它可以由主链接上的主机用于自动配置目的。
As we see, the concept of a Home Network for Mobile IPv6 is really a prefix on a link, served by one or more Home Agents as opposed to a routed mesh. We will see in the next sections that NEMO needs additional prefixes for use by the Mobile Networks. For that reason, NEMO extends the concept of Home Network into a more complex, aggregated structure.
如我们所见，移动IPv6家庭网络的概念实际上是链路上的前缀，由一个或多个家庭代理提供服务，而不是路由网格。在接下来的章节中，我们将看到NEMO需要额外的前缀以供移动网络使用。因此，NEMO将家庭网络的概念扩展为更复杂的聚合结构。
One simple way of extending the MIP Home Network is to use additional prefixes, contiguous to the Home Link Prefix inherited from MIPv6, as Mobile Network Prefixes. As this model trivially extends the MIP Home Network, the resulting aggregation is called a NEMO Extended Home Network. It is depicted in Figure 1.
扩展MIP家庭网络的一个简单方法是使用附加前缀，与从MIPv6继承的家庭链路前缀相邻，作为移动网络前缀。由于该模型简单地扩展了MIP家庭网络，因此产生的聚合称为NEMO扩展家庭网络。如图1所示。
|
route v /48 A:B:C::/48
|
route v /48 A:B:C::/48
HA
| /64 Home Link: A:B:C:0::/64
--+-----+--+- . -+- . -+--
| | | |
MR1 MR2 MRi MRN
| | | |
------ ------ ------ ------
/64 /64 /64 /64 MNP: A:B:C:i::/64
HA
| /64 Home Link: A:B:C:0::/64
--+-----+--+- . -+- . -+--
| | | |
MR1 MR2 MRi MRN
| | | |
------ ------ ------ ------
/64 /64 /64 /64 MNP: A:B:C:i::/64
Extended Home Network
<----------------------------------------------------------->
Extended Home Network
<----------------------------------------------------------->
Home Net Mobile Net Mobile Net ... Mobile Net
<------------><------------><------------> ... <------------>
Home Net Mobile Net Mobile Net ... Mobile Net
<------------><------------><------------> ... <------------>
Figure 1: Extended Home Network
图1：扩展家庭网络
In that arrangement:
在这种安排中：
o There is one physical Home Network and multiple Mobile Networks
o 有一个物理家庭网络和多个移动网络
o The Home Prefix and the MNPs are tailored to allow for IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration with typical interface identifier length for the type of interface (for example, can be /64).
o Home前缀和MNP经过定制，允许IPv6无状态地址自动配置，具有接口类型的典型接口标识符长度（例如，可以是/64）。
o The prefix length of the Extended Home Network is shorter than that of the Home Network and the MNPs, since it is an aggregation (for example, can be /48).
o 扩展家庭网络的前缀长度比家庭网络和mnp的前缀长度短，因为它是聚合（例如，可以是/48）。
o Since the Extended Home Network operations inherit trivially from MIPv6, it can be seen as natural that the Mobile Routers be assigned their Home Addresses from the prefix on the Home Link. In that case, a Home Agent can perform DAD on the Home Link as prescribed by Mobile IPv6 for the Mobile Router Home Addresses (MRHAs).
o 由于扩展家庭网络操作从MIPv6继承而来，因此可以很自然地从家庭链路上的前缀为移动路由器分配其家庭地址。在这种情况下，归属代理可以按照移动IPv6对移动路由器归属地址（MRHA）的规定在归属链路上执行DAD。
In the Extended Home Network model, the Home Network is configured on a physical interface of the Home Agent, the Home Link.
在扩展家庭网络模型中，家庭网络配置在家庭代理的物理接口（家庭链路）上。
A Mobile Router returns home by connecting directly to the Home Link, and dropping the MRHA tunnel.
移动路由器通过直接连接到家庭链路并丢弃MRHA隧道返回家庭。
When at home, the Mobile Router ensures the connectivity of the Mobile Network using standard router operations.
在家时，移动路由器使用标准路由器操作确保移动网络的连通性。
In implicit mode, the Home Agent has the necessary information to continue routing to the MNPs in the absence of registration, assuming that the Mobile Router is at home, and the participation of the Mobile Router to the home Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) is not required.
在隐式模式中，假设移动路由器在家，并且移动路由器不需要参与家庭内部网关协议（IGP），则归属代理具有在没有注册的情况下继续路由到mnp的必要信息。
But in explicit mode, or if the Mobile Router uses an IGP over the MRHA tunnel, then it needs to resume its IGP operations on the Home Link in order to advertise its Mobile Networks to the HA, unless some other means such as static routes are deployed to cover the case.
但是在显式模式下，或者如果移动路由器在MRHA隧道上使用IGP，则它需要恢复其在归属链路上的IGP操作，以便向HA公布其移动网络，除非部署了诸如静态路由之类的其他方法来覆盖该情况。
Alternative procedures for ensuring the connectivity of the Mobile Networks when at home are described in Section 7.
第7节描述了在家时确保移动网络连接的替代程序。
We saw that a natural extension of the MIP procedure is to derive the Home Address of a Mobile Router from the prefix on the Home Link. Alternatively, NEMO basic support allows that a Mobile Router forms its Home Address from one of its Mobile Network Prefixes.
我们看到，MIP过程的一个自然扩展是从主链路上的前缀导出移动路由器的主地址。或者，NEMO基本支持允许移动路由器从其移动网络前缀之一形成其家庭地址。
In that case, the Home Address does not match the Home Link Prefix, and there is a need to configure the Home Agent in a specific mode with the support for the Extended Home Network and the range of the Mobile Network Prefixes. Based on that new configuration, the Home Agent can accept a Home Address that is not from the Home Link, and it will know that it should not perform any DAD.
在这种情况下，归属地址与归属链路前缀不匹配，并且需要在特定模式下配置归属代理，以支持扩展归属网络和移动网络前缀的范围。基于该新配置，归属代理可以接受不是来自归属链接的归属地址，并且它将知道它不应该执行任何DAD。
Also, if the Mobile Router uses a Home Address that is derived from its MNP, some specific support is required on the Mobile Router as well. In order to determine that it is at home, the Mobile Router recognizes the well-known prefix of its Home Agent as opposed to matching the prefix on the Home Link with that of its Home Address.
此外，如果移动路由器使用从其MNP派生的家庭地址，那么移动路由器上也需要一些特定的支持。为了确定它在家中，移动路由器识别其归属代理的众所周知的前缀，而不是将归属链路上的前缀与其归属地址的前缀匹配。
When connecting to the Home Link, the Mobile Router also need to autoconfigure an address on the Egress interface as opposed to assigning its home Address to the interface.
当连接到家庭链路时，移动路由器还需要在出口接口上自动配置地址，而不是将其家庭地址分配给接口。
For all these reasons, this submode of Extended Home Network is not a trivial extension of the MIPv6 Home Model, and it might not be compatible with all implementations.
由于所有这些原因，扩展家庭网络的这个子模式不是MIPv6家庭模型的一个简单扩展，它可能与所有实现都不兼容。
In explicit mode, the routing to the MNP via the Mobile Router must be restored when the Mobile Router is at home. This is normally performed by the Mobile Router by means of the existing IGP. In that case, a specific support is required on the Mobile Router to control the routing protocol operation, enabling the participation in the IGP if and only if the Mobile Router is at home.
在显式模式下，当移动路由器在家时，必须恢复通过移动路由器到MNP的路由。这通常由移动路由器通过现有IGP执行。在这种情况下，需要移动路由器上的特定支持来控制路由协议操作，当且仅当移动路由器在家时才允许参与IGP。
The NEMO Basic Support does not mandate a specific routing protocol though the support for some well-known routing protocols can be expected from many implementations. An implementation might provide an automatic toggle to start/stop routing on an egress interface when the mobile router comes back/leaves home. When such a toggle is unavailable, then a specific interface should be reserved to attach to home with the appropriate settings for security and routing.
NEMO基本支持并不强制要求特定的路由协议，尽管许多实现都会支持一些众所周知的路由协议。当移动路由器返回/离开家中时，一个实现可以提供一个自动切换来在出口接口上启动/停止路由。当这种切换不可用时，应保留一个特定的接口，以便通过适当的安全和路由设置连接到主页。
The Extended Home Network keeps the MIP6 concept of a Home Network for both Mobile Nodes and Mobile Routers to take their Home Address from. Since there is no overlap between the prefixes that are assigned to MNPs and prefix(es) that are dedicated to the Home Link, it is possible for MNs and Mobile Routers to coexist with that model.
扩展家庭网络保留了家庭网络的MIP6概念，用于移动节点和移动路由器获取其家庭地址。由于分配给mnp的前缀和专用于归属链路的前缀之间没有重叠，因此MNs和移动路由器可以与该模型共存。
Also, when the Home Address is derived from the prefix on the Home Link, the Home Agent behavior on the link trivially extends that of MIP and the support for that configuration should be available with all implementations.
此外，当家庭地址是从家庭链接上的前缀派生出来的时，链接上的家庭代理行为只是简单地扩展了MIP的行为，对该配置的支持应该适用于所有实现。
There are a number of issues with returning home when a Mobile Router configures its Home Address from the MNP as described in Section 5.3. Therefore, we do not recommend this mechanism if the Mobile Routers attach to the Home Network.
如第5.3节所述，当移动路由器从MNP配置其家庭地址时，返回家庭存在许多问题。因此，如果移动路由器连接到家庭网络，我们不建议使用这种机制。
One other approach is to consider that the aggregation of all the MNPs is used plainly as the Home Link Prefix. In this model, the Home Network is referred to as a NEMO Aggregated Home Network. This means that the Mobile Aggregated Prefix is configured on the Home Link and advertised by the Home Agent as a subnet, as depicted in Figure 2.
另一种方法是考虑所有MNPS的聚合被简单地用作归属链路前缀。在该模型中，家庭网络被称为NEMO聚合家庭网络。这意味着移动聚合前缀在归属链路上配置，并由归属代理作为子网发布，如图2所示。
HA
| /56 Aggreg /56
--+-----+--+- . -+- . -+--
| | | |
MR1 MR2 MRi MRN
| | | |
------ ------ ------ ------
/64 /64 /64 /64 Aggreg|i /64 0 < i <= N
HA
| /56 Aggreg /56
--+-----+--+- . -+- . -+--
| | | |
MR1 MR2 MRi MRN
| | | |
------ ------ ------ ------
/64 /64 /64 /64 Aggreg|i /64 0 < i <= N
Aggregated Home Network == Home Network
<----------------------------------------------------------->
Aggregated Home Network == Home Network
<----------------------------------------------------------->
Mobile Net Mobile Net Mobile Net ... Mobile Net
<------------><------------><------------> ... <------------>
Mobile Net Mobile Net Mobile Net ... Mobile Net
<------------><------------><------------> ... <------------>
Figure 2: Aggregated Home Network
图2：聚合家庭网络
In that model, it seems natural to subnet the whole range of addresses into Mobile Network prefixes, as opposed to reserving one prefix for the Home Link, which would boil down to the Extended Home Network model. If the prefix on the Home Link is really an aggregation and not a final prefix, it should not be allowed for autoconfiguration or Home Address allocation.
在该模型中，似乎很自然地将整个地址范围子网化为移动网络前缀，而不是为家庭链路保留一个前缀，这可以归结为扩展家庭网络模型。如果主链接上的前缀实际上是聚合而不是最终前缀，则不应允许自动配置或主地址分配。
Note that in that case, it makes sense for a Mobile Router to register using a Home Address from one of its own MNPs. Taking the Home Address from its own range guarantees the uniqueness of the suffix. That uniqueness can be checked by the Mobile Router on its Ingress network (see [3]) using DAD.
请注意，在这种情况下，移动路由器使用自己的MNP之一的家庭地址进行注册是有意义的。从自己的范围中提取家庭地址可以保证后缀的唯一性。这种唯一性可以由移动路由器在其入口网络（见[3]）上使用DAD进行检查。
The Aggregated Home Prefix is configured on a physical interface of the Home Agent, the Home Link. As a consequence, the Home Agent has a connected route to the Aggregated Home Network over the Home Link.
聚合的归属前缀在归属代理的物理接口（归属链接）上配置。因此，归属代理具有通过归属链路到聚合的归属网络的连接路由。
A Mobile Router returns home by connecting directly to the Home Link, and dropping the MRHA tunnel. The Mobile Router recognizes its Home Link by a prefix match with its Home Agent.
移动路由器通过直接连接到家庭链路并丢弃MRHA隧道返回家庭。移动路由器通过与其归属代理的前缀匹配来识别其归属链路。
When the Mobile Router forms its Home Address out of one of its MNPs, since the Home Network prefix is an aggregation that encompasses all the MNPs, the Home Address actually matches both prefixes. To properly identify the Home Network as it returns home, the MR must expect a shorter prefix length than that of the MNP from which the Home Address was formed.
当移动路由器从其一个MNP中形成其归属地址时，由于归属网络前缀是包含所有MNP的聚合，因此归属地址实际上与两个前缀匹配。为了在回家时正确识别归属网络，MR必须期望前缀长度比形成归属地址的MNP的前缀长度短。
A Mobile Router coming home via its Egress interface sees overlapping prefixes between the Ingress and the Egress interfaces and some specific support may be needed:
通过其出口接口回家的移动路由器看到入口和出口接口之间的前缀重叠，可能需要一些特定的支持：
When a Mobile Router connects to the Home Link using its Egress Interface, it might set up a bridge between its Ingress interface(s) and the Home Link, if the interfaces are compatible.
当移动路由器使用其出口接口连接到家庭链路时，如果接口兼容，它可能在其入口接口和家庭链路之间建立桥接。
Alternatively, the Mobile Router might perform ND proxying for all addresses in its MNPs, between the Egress interface and the related Ingress interface, as described in [8]. Since the prefixes on the Egress and Ingress interfaces are overlapping, routing is disallowed.
或者，移动路由器可以在出口接口和相关入口接口之间对其MNP中的所有地址执行ND代理，如[8]中所述。由于出口和入口接口上的前缀重叠，因此不允许路由。
The Mobile Router does not need to join the local IGP when returning home, even if it is using the explicit Prefix Mode. When the Mobile Router is not registered, the Home Agent simply expects that all Mobile Network Nodes (MNNs) will be reachable over the Home Link.
移动路由器在回家时不需要加入本地IGP，即使它使用的是显式前缀模式。当移动路由器未注册时，归属代理只希望所有移动网络节点（MNN）都可以通过归属链路访问。
HA
|
-------+--+--- /56
|
Egress |
MR at home
|
--+--- /64
HA
|
-------+--+--- /56
|
Egress |
MR at home
|
--+--- /64
Figure 3: Bridging between Egress and Ingress
图3：出口和入口之间的桥接
Alternatively, if the Mobile Router has a single Ingress interface, the Mobile Router may use the NEMO-Link to connect to the Home Link, merging the two links in a single consistent network.
或者，如果移动路由器具有单个入口接口，则移动路由器可以使用NEMO链路连接到归属链路，将两个链路合并到单个一致网络中。
HA
|
-------+-+---- /56
|
---+-- /64
|
MR at home
Egress |
HA
|
-------+-+---- /56
|
---+-- /64
|
MR at home
Egress |
Figure 4: Merging the Home and the Mobile Networks
图4：合并家庭和移动网络
This fits the connected route model, since the Aggregated Home Network is truly located on that network. Note that in that case, it makes sense for a Mobile Router to register using a Home Address from one of its own MNPs.
这符合连接的路由模型，因为聚合的家庭网络确实位于该网络上。请注意，在这种情况下，移动路由器使用自己的MNP之一的家庭地址进行注册是有意义的。
With this model, there is no specific space for independent nodes, as any address in the aggregation belongs to a MNP, and thus to a Mobile Router. This configuration excludes the cohabitation with MIP6 MNs on the Home Link.
使用此模型，独立节点没有特定的空间，因为聚合中的任何地址都属于MNP，因此属于移动路由器。此配置不包括与主链路上的MIP6 MNs同居。
A node on the Home Link receiving a Router Advertisement that includes the Aggregated Home Network prefix might use that prefix for Address Autoconfiguration. Such a node would also install a connected route to the Aggregated Home Network over the Home Link.
家庭链路上接收包含聚合家庭网络前缀的路由器播发的节点可以使用该前缀进行地址自动配置。这样的节点还将通过家庭链路安装到聚合家庭网络的连接路由。
As a result, unless the node has a better (longest match) route to a given Mobile Network Prefix, it would look up all MNNs on that MNP using Neighbor Discovery over its interface to the Home Link, and fail.
因此，除非节点具有到给定移动网络前缀的更好（最长匹配）路由，否则它将通过其到归属链路的接口使用邻居发现查找该MNP上的所有MNN，并失败。
Thus, on the Home Link, the Home Agent must intercept all the packets for ALL the Mobile Network Nodes on the registered prefixes; that is, for ALL nodes attached to Mobile Routers that are away from home. This should be a layer 2 operation, rather than layer 3. The Home Agent might, for example, perform some form of ND proxying for all addresses in all registered Mobile Network Prefixes.
因此，在归属链路上，归属代理必须截获注册前缀上所有移动网络节点的所有分组；也就是说，对于连接到远离家乡的移动路由器的所有节点。这应该是第2层操作，而不是第3层。例如，归属代理可以对所有注册的移动网络前缀中的所有地址执行某种形式的ND代理。
The Home Agent must also protect the MNP space from autoconfiguration by uncontrolled visitors at Neighbor Discovery level.
归属代理还必须在邻居发现级别保护MNP空间，防止不受控制的访问者自动配置。
There is a need to provide a specific configuration on the Home Agent to specify that it operates in Aggregated Mode. If a Home Agent implementation is simply derived from that of MIP, then the capability to perform the required proxying might not exist, and the Aggregated Mode will not operate properly for nodes on the Home Link.
需要在归属代理上提供特定配置，以指定其在聚合模式下运行。如果归属代理实现只是从MIP的实现派生而来，则可能不存在执行所需代理的功能，并且聚合模式将无法对归属链路上的节点正常运行。
If the Mobile Router returns home by Egress, a specific support is required to control the bridging operation depending on whether or not a Mobile Router is at home. This support might not be present in all implementations.
如果移动路由器通过出口返回家中，则需要特定的支持来控制桥接操作，这取决于移动路由器是否在家中。这种支持可能并不存在于所有的实现中。
The NEMO Basic Support does not mention a specific behavior for bridging though bridging capabilities can be expected from many implementations. An implementation might provide an automatic toggle to start/stop bridging on an Egress interface when the Mobile Router comes back/leaves home. When such a toggle is unavailable, then a specific interface should be reserved to attach to home with the appropriate settings for security and bridging.
NEMO基本支持没有提到桥接的特定行为，尽管桥接功能可以从许多实现中预期。当移动路由器返回/离开家中时，一个实现可以提供一个自动切换来在出口接口上启动/停止桥接。当这样的切换不可用时，应保留一个特定的接口，以便通过适当的安全和桥接设置连接到主页。
Also, note that NEMO authorizes multiple registrations for a same MNP by different Mobile Routers. This is a case of multihoming, and it normally means that the Mobile Routers are interconnected by the Ingress network that bears the common MNP. But there is no provision in NEMO Basic Support to test that this condition is met at binding time and maintained over time.
另外，请注意，NEMO通过不同的移动路由器为同一MNP授权多个注册。这是多归属的情况，通常意味着移动路由器通过承载公共MNP的入口网络互连。但《NEMO基本支持》中没有规定测试在绑定时是否满足该条件，并随时间保持该条件。
It is thus possible for 2 different Mobile Routers to register the same prefix with different Home Addresses, and this will cause an undetected problem if the corresponding Ingress interfaces are not connected.
因此，两个不同的移动路由器可以用不同的家庭地址注册相同的前缀，如果没有连接相应的入口接口，这将导致未检测到的问题。
When the Home Address of a Mobile Router is derived from its MNP, there is thus an additional risk of an undetected misconfiguration if the Home Address is autoconfigured from the Ingress interface as opposed to statically assigning an address and MNP.
当移动路由器的归属地址来自其MNP时，如果归属地址是从入口接口自动配置的，而不是静态地分配地址和MNP，则存在未检测到的错误配置的额外风险。
A Mobile Router that is at home must own an address from the aggregation on its Egress interface and an address from its MNP -- a subnet of that aggregation -- on its Ingress interface. A pure router will reject that configuration, and the Mobile Router needs to act as a bridge to use it. In order to deploy the Aggregated Home Network model, one must check whether that support is available in the Mobile Routers if returning home is required.
在家中的移动路由器必须在其出口接口上拥有来自聚合的地址，并在其入口接口上拥有来自其MNP（聚合的子网）的地址。纯路由器将拒绝该配置，移动路由器需要充当桥接器来使用它。为了部署聚合家庭网络模型，如果需要返回家庭，必须检查移动路由器中是否有这种支持。
The Home Link can be configured on the Home Agent on a virtual link, in which case there is no physical Home Link for Mobile Routers to return home to, or for Home Agents to discover each other and perform the ND-level interactions on, as described in Mobile IPv6 [4].
归属链路可以在虚拟链路上的归属代理上配置，在这种情况下，没有物理归属链路可供移动路由器返回家乡，或供归属代理相互发现并在其上执行ND级交互，如移动IPv6[4]中所述。
/48 e.g.: A:B:C::/48
HA
| /64 A:B:C::/64
--+-----+--+- . -+- . -+--
| | | |
MR1 MR2 MRi MRN
/64 /64 /64 /64 A:B:C:i::/64 0 < i <= N
/48 e.g.: A:B:C::/48
HA
| /64 A:B:C::/64
--+-----+--+- . -+- . -+--
| | | |
MR1 MR2 MRi MRN
/64 /64 /64 /64 A:B:C:i::/64 0 < i <= N
Figure 5: Virtual Home Network
图5：虚拟家庭网络
The Extended Home Network and the Aggregated Home Network models can be adapted for virtual links.
扩展家庭网络和聚合家庭网络模型可适用于虚拟链路。
As in the case of a physical link, the Home Address of a Mobile Router can be constructed based on a dedicated subnet of the Home Prefix or one of the Mobile Router MNPs.
与物理链路的情况一样，可以基于归属前缀的专用子网或移动路由器mnp之一来构造移动路由器的归属地址。
Note that since the Home Address is never checked for DAD, it makes the configuration easier to take it from the MNP as opposed to a specific subnet.
请注意，由于从未检查过DAD的家庭地址，因此与特定子网相比，更容易从MNP获取配置。
There are certain advantages to making the Home Link a virtual link:
使主链接成为虚拟链接具有某些优势：
A virtual link may not experience any disruption related to physical maintenance or to hardware problems, so it is more available than a physical link. The high availability of the Home Link is critical for the mobility service.
虚拟链路可能不会遇到与物理维护或硬件问题相关的任何中断，因此它比物理链路更可用。家庭链路的高可用性对于移动服务至关重要。
The Home Agent does not have to defend the Mobile Router's Home Address through Proxy Neighbor Discovery. The Home Agent does not also have to perform Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for the Mobile Router's Home Address when it receives a Binding Update from the Mobile Router.
归属代理不必通过代理邻居发现来保护移动路由器的归属地址。归属代理在接收到来自移动路由器的绑定更新时，也不必对移动路由器的归属地址执行重复地址检测（DAD）。
The Mobile Router does not have to implement the Returning Home procedure (Section 11.5.4 of Mobile IPv6 [4]).
移动路由器不必执行回家程序（移动IPv6[4]第11.5.4节）。
There are also some drawbacks to the Virtual Home Link approach:
虚拟主链接方法也有一些缺点：
RFC 3775 [4] and RFC 3963 [5] do not provide the specific support for a Mobile Node to emulate returning home on a Virtual Home Network. In particular, in the case of NEMO, the routing information from the Mobile Router being injected on the IGP might adversely affect IPv6 route aggregation on the Home Network.
RFC 3775[4]和RFC 3963[5]不提供移动节点在虚拟家庭网络上模拟回家的具体支持。特别是，在NEMO的情况下，来自正在IGP上注入的移动路由器的路由信息可能对家庭网络上的IPv6路由聚合产生不利影响。
There can be only one Home Agent since Mobile IPv6 relies on Neighbor Discovery on the Home Link for other Home Agent discovery and for Duplicate Address Detection.
只能有一个归属代理，因为移动IPv6依赖于归属链路上的邻居发现来进行其他归属代理发现和重复地址检测。
The Home Agent must maintain a Binding Cache entry for a Mobile Router and forwarding state for its Mobile Network even when the Mobile Router is directly connected to it. All traffic to and from the Mobile Network is sent through the bi-directional tunnel regardless of the Mobile Router location. This results in a tunneling overhead even though the Mobile Router is connected to the Home Network.
归属代理必须维护移动路由器的绑定缓存条目及其移动网络的转发状态，即使移动路由器直接连接到它。无论移动路由器的位置如何，进出移动网络的所有流量都通过双向隧道发送。即使移动路由器连接到家庭网络，这也会导致隧道开销。
Suggestions on how to perform an equivalent of returning home on a Virtual Home Network have been proposed, but this topic is outside of the scope of this document.
已经提出了关于如何在虚拟家庭网络上执行相当于回家的操作的建议，但本主题不在本文档的范围之内。
NEMO operations rely on ND extensions over the Home Link for the Home Agent to Home Agent communication.
NEMO操作依赖于本地链路上的ND扩展，用于本地代理到本地代理的通信。
Making the Home Link virtual bars the deployment of multiple Home Agents, which may be desirable for reasons of load balancing. Please refer to the NEMO multihoming issues [9] for more on this.
使主链路虚拟化会阻止多个主代理的部署，这可能是出于负载平衡的原因。有关这方面的更多信息，请参阅NEMO多址问题[9]。
Yet, for a deployment where a single Home Agent is enough, making the Home Link virtual reduces the vulnerability to some attacks and to some hardware failures, while making the Home Agent operation faster.
然而，对于单个主代理就足够的部署而言，使主链接虚拟化可以降低某些攻击和某些硬件故障的脆弱性，同时使主代理操作更快。
Note that NEMO basic does not mandate the support of Virtual Home Networks.
请注意，NEMO basic不强制要求支持虚拟家庭网络。
In this arrangement, there is a bitwise hierarchy of Home Networks. A global Home Network is advertised to the infrastructure by a head Home Agent(s) and further subnetted into Mobile Networks. As a result, only the Home Agent(s) responsible for the most global (shortest prefix) aggregation receive all the packets for all the MNPs, which are leaves in the hierarchy tree.
在这种安排中，存在家庭网络的按位层次结构。全球家庭网络由主家庭代理向基础设施发布广告，并进一步子网化到移动网络中。因此，只有负责最全局（最短前缀）聚合的归属代理才能接收所有MNP的所有数据包，这些数据包是层次结构树中的叶子。
Each subnet is owned by a Mobile Router that registers it in a NEMO fashion while acting as a Home Agent for that network. This Mobile Router is at home at the upper level of hierarchy. This configuration is referred to as Mobile Home.
每个子网都由一个移动路由器拥有，该路由器以NEMO方式注册它，同时充当该网络的归属代理。这个移动路由器位于家庭的上层。此配置称为移动家庭。
An example of this is the Cab Co configuration. Cab Co is a taxi company that uses a /32 prefix for its Home Network, this prefix being advertised by the company headquarters (HQ). Regional offices are deployed around the country. Even though these regional offices
驾驶室Co配置就是一个例子。Cab Co是一家出租车公司，其家庭网络使用a/32前缀，该前缀由公司总部（HQ）发布。区域办事处部署在全国各地。即使这些地区办事处
are relatively stable in terms of location and prefix requirement -- say, this changes every few years -- making them mobile allows a simpler management when a move has to take place, or should the ISP service change.
在位置和前缀要求方面相对稳定——比如说，每隔几年就会发生一次变化——当必须移动或ISP服务发生变化时，使其移动化可以简化管理。
To illustrate this configuration, we make up the prefixes to reflect their role, like CAB:C0::/32 for the Home Network:
为了说明此配置，我们制作前缀以反映其作用，如家庭网络的CAB:C0:：/32：
global Home Network CAB:C0::/32 advertised by HQ
<------------------------------------------------------------------>
global Home Network CAB:C0::/32 advertised by HQ
<------------------------------------------------------------------>
HQ Extended Home Net Mobile Home for SFO office
(casa)
CAB:C0:CA5A::/48 CAB:C0:5F0::/48
<----------------------------> ... <------------------------------->
|
Home for offices HQ |
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::/64 MN |
<----------------------><----> |
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::CA5A |
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::CA5B |
are HAs on link with for each office a route like |
|
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::5F0 <---------------------- via
is the Home addr
of SFO office
HQ Extended Home Net Mobile Home for SFO office
(casa)
CAB:C0:CA5A::/48 CAB:C0:5F0::/48
<----------------------------> ... <------------------------------->
|
Home for offices HQ |
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::/64 MN |
<----------------------><----> |
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::CA5A |
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::CA5B |
are HAs on link with for each office a route like |
|
CAB:C0:CA5A:CA5A::5F0 <---------------------- via
is the Home addr
of SFO office
Figure 6: CAB Company HQ Configuration
图6:CAB公司总部配置
Finally, each regional office owns a number of taxis, each one equipped with a mobile router and an associated /64 prefix.
最后，每个地区办事处都拥有多辆出租车，每辆出租车都配有移动路由器和相关的/64前缀。
For each Office, say San Francisco (SFO) as an example:
对于每个办公室，比如说旧金山（SFO）：
Mobile Home Network CAB:C0:5F0::/48 owned by SFO office
<------------------------------------------------------------------>
Mobile Home Network CAB:C0:5F0::/48 owned by SFO office
<------------------------------------------------------------------>
SFO Home Network Mobile Networks for taxis
for taxis <---------------------...--------------------->
CAB:C0:5F0:5F0::/64 CAB:C0:5F0:CAB1::/64 CAB:C0:5F0:....::/64
<-------------------><-------------------> ... <------------------->
CAB:C0:5F0:5F0::5F0 |
is HA on link with for |
each taxi a route like |
|
CAB:C0:5F0:5F0::CAB1 <------ via
is the Home Address
of CAB 1
SFO Home Network Mobile Networks for taxis
for taxis <---------------------...--------------------->
CAB:C0:5F0:5F0::/64 CAB:C0:5F0:CAB1::/64 CAB:C0:5F0:....::/64
<-------------------><-------------------> ... <------------------->
CAB:C0:5F0:5F0::5F0 |
is HA on link with for |
each taxi a route like |
|
CAB:C0:5F0:5F0::CAB1 <------ via
is the Home Address
of CAB 1
Figure 7: CAB Company regional configuration
图7:CAB公司区域配置
Note that this is a hierarchy in terms of MR-HA relationship, which may not be reflected in the physical arrangement of nodes at a given point of time. For instance, in the Cab Co case, some SFO cabs might attach to any hot spot or Cab Co office in a different city, and the SFO office might be at home if it is co-located with the headquarters. But note that SFO should never attach to one of its own cabs. This would create a stalemate situation, as documented in the NEMO Route Optimization (RO) problem statement [7].
请注意，这是MR-HA关系方面的层次结构，可能不会反映在给定时间点节点的物理安排中。例如，在Cab联合案例中，一些SFO Cab可能会连接到不同城市的任何热点或Cab联合办公室，如果SFO办公室与总部位于同一地点，则SFO办公室可能在家中。但请注意，SFO不应连接到其自己的驾驶室。这将造成僵局，如NEMO路线优化（RO）问题陈述[7]所述。
But it is also possible to reflect the organizational hierarchy in a moving cloud of Mobile Routers. If a Mobile Home Agent acts as root-MR for a nested configuration of its own Mobile Routers, then the communication between Mobile Routers is confined within the nested structure.
但也可以在移动路由器的移动云中反映组织层次结构。如果移动归属代理充当其自身移动路由器的嵌套配置的根MR，则移动路由器之间的通信被限制在嵌套结构内。
This can be illustrated in the case of a fleet at sea. Assume that SFO is a communication ship of a fleet, using a satellite link to join the infrastructure, and that the cabs are Mobile Routers installed on smaller ships, equipped with low-range radios.
这可以用海上舰队的例子来说明。假设SFO是一艘舰队的通信船，使用卫星链路加入基础设施，CAB是安装在小型船舶上的移动路由器，配备低距离无线电。
If SFO is also the root-MR of a nested structure of its own cabs, the communication between cabs is relayed by SFO and does not require the satellite link. As for traffic to the outside of the nested NEMO, SFO recursively terminates the nested tunnels from its cabs and reencapsulates all the packets between the nested cloud and correspondents in the infrastructure in a single tunnel to CA5A. As a result, the unwanted effect of nesting of tunnels is avoided over the Internet part of the packet path.
如果SFO也是其自身驾驶室嵌套结构的根MR，则驾驶室之间的通信由SFO中继，不需要卫星链路。至于到嵌套NEMO外部的流量，SFO递归地终止其CAB中的嵌套隧道，并将嵌套云和基础设施中对应者之间的所有数据包重新封装到CA5A的单个隧道中。因此，在包路径的因特网部分避免了隧道嵌套的不必要影响。
This complex topology applies to a large distributed fleet, mostly if there is a single interchange point with the Internet (e.g., a Network Address Transition (NAT) or a SOCKS [1] server farm) where the super Home Agent could be located.
这种复杂的拓扑结构适用于大型分布式车队，大多数情况下，如果超级归属代理可能位于互联网的单个交换点（例如，网络地址转换（NAT）或SOCKS[1]服务器场）。
One specific benefit is that when 2 Mobile Routers travel together with a common Home Agent, the traffic between the 2 is not necessarily routed via the infrastructure, but can stay confined within the mobile cloud, the Mobile Home Agent acting as a rendezvous point between the Mobile Routers. This applies particularly well for a fleet at sea when the long-haul access may be as expensive as a satellite link.
一个具体的好处是，当两个移动路由器与一个公共归属代理一起旅行时，两个路由器之间的通信量不一定通过基础设施路由，而是可以被限制在移动云中，移动归属代理充当移动路由器之间的集合点。这尤其适用于海上舰队，因为长途接入可能与卫星链路一样昂贵。
This document only explains how a Home Network can be deployed to support Mobile Routers and does not introduce any additional security concerns. Please see RFC 3963 [5] for security considerations for the NEMO Basic Support protocol.
本文档仅解释如何部署家庭网络以支持移动路由器，而不引入任何其他安全问题。有关NEMO基本支持协议的安全注意事项，请参见RFC 3963[5]。
The authors wish to thank Erik Nordmark, Jari Arkko, Henrik Levkowetz, Scott Hollenbeck, Ted Hardie, David Kessens, Pekka Savola, Kent Leung, Thierry Ernst, TJ Kniveton, Patrick Wetterwald, Alexandru Petrescu, and David Binet for their contributions.
作者希望感谢Erik Nordmark、Jari Arkko、Henrik Levkowetz、Scott Hollenbeck、Ted Hardie、David Kessens、Pekka Savola、Kent Leung、Thierry Ernst、TJ Kniveton、Patrick Wetterwald、Alexandru Petrescu和David Binet的贡献。
[1] Leech, M., Ganis, M., Lee, Y., Kuris, R., Koblas, D., and L. Jones, "SOCKS Protocol Version 5", RFC 1928, March 1996.
[1] Leech，M.，Ganis，M.，Lee，Y.，Kuris，R.，Koblas，D.，和L.Jones，“SOCKS协议版本5”，RFC 19281996年3月。
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[3] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC 3753, June 2004.
[3] Way，J.和M.Kojo，“机动性相关术语”，RFC 3753，2004年6月。
[4] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[4] Johnson，D.，Perkins，C.，和J.Arkko，“IPv6中的移动支持”，RFC 37752004年6月。
[5] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005.
[5] Devarapalli，V.，Wakikawa，R.，Petrescu，A.，和P.Thubert，“网络移动（NEMO）基本支持协议”，RFC 3963，2005年1月。
[6] Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", July 2007.
[6] Ernst，T.和H.Lach，“网络移动支持术语”，2007年7月。
[7] Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., and F. Zhao, "Network Mobility Route Optimization Problem Statement", RFC 4888, July 2007.
[7] Ng，C.，Thubert，P.，Watari，M.，和F.Zhao，“网络移动路径优化问题声明”，RFC 4888，2007年7月。
[8] Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006.
[8] Thaler，D.，Talwar，M.和C.Patel，“邻居发现代理（ND代理）”，RFC 4389，2006年4月。
[9] Ng, C., "Analysis of Multihoming in Network Mobility Support", Work in Progress, February 2007.
[9] Ng，C.“网络移动性支持中的多宿分析”，正在进行的工作，2007年2月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Pascal Thubert Cisco Systems Village d'Entreprises Green Side 400, Avenue de Roumanille Batiment T3, Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 FRANCE
Pascal Thubert Cisco Systems Village d'Enterprises Green Side 400，法国索菲亚安提波利斯市比奥区鲁曼尼耶大道T3号，邮编：06410
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
EMail: pthubert@cisco.com
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
EMail: pthubert@cisco.com
Ryuji Wakikawa Keio University and WIDE 5322 Endo Fujisawa Kanagawa 252-8520 JAPAN
日本庆应庆应大学和广域5322藤泽神奈川252-8520
EMail: ryuji@sfc.wide.ad.jp
EMail: ryuji@sfc.wide.ad.jp
Vijay Devarapalli Azaire Networks 3121 Jay Street Santa Clara, CA 94054 USA
Vijay Devarapalli Azaire Networks美国加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉市杰街3121号，邮编94054
EMail: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
EMail: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。
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.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
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.
本文件及其包含的信息以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和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.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。