IP Encapsulation within IP

Perkins, Charles E.

doi:10.17487/rfc2003

Cited by 351 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

165

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The design of Mobile IP support in IPv6 (Mobile IPv6) benefits both from the experiences gained from the development of Mobile IP support in IPv4 (Mobile IPv4) [22,23,24], and from the opportunities provided by IPv6. Mobile IPv6 thus shares many features with Mobile…”

Section: Comparison With Mobile Ip For Ipv4mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobility Support in IPv6

Johnson¹,

Perkins²,

Arkko³

2004

Self Cite

2,306

2,236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparison With Mobile Ip For Ipv4mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobility Support in IPv6

Johnson¹,

Perkins²,

Arkko³

2004

Self Cite

2,306

2,236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Different formulations of this problem have been used in the literature (e.g. multi-constrained path selection [23,25,26], restricted shortest path [20], etc.). However, in many practical situations, the problem reduces to finding a low-cost delay constrained path, which can be stated as follows: Definition 1.…”

Section: Network Model and Problem Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Algorithms and protocols for stateless constrained-based routing

Zhang

Krunz

2003

Computer Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality of service (QoS) routing has generally been addressed in the context of reservation-based network services (e.g. ATM, IntServ), which require explicit (out of band) signaling of reservation requests and maintenance of per-flow state information. It has been recognized that the processing of per-flow state information poses scalability problems, especially at core routers. To remedy this situation, in this paper we introduce an approach for stateless QoS routing in IP networks that assumes no support for signaling or reservation from the network. Instead, our approach makes use of the currently unused two bits in the DiffServ (DS) byte of the IP packet header. Simple heuristics are used to identify a low-cost delay-constrained path. These heuristics essentially divide the end-to-end path into at most two 'superedges' that are connected by a 'relay node'. Routers that lie on the same superedge use either the cost metric or the delay metric (but not both) to forward the packet. Standard hop-by-hop forwarding is performed with respect to either metric. Two different approaches are presented for implementing the relay-based forwarding. In the first approach, a probing protocol is used to identify the relay node and the routing metrics of the superedges. Tunneling and packet encapsulation are then used to forward packets from the source node to the relay node and then from the relay node to the destination node. The second approach does not require probing, but instead relies on the time-to-live (TTL) field in the header of the IP packet. Simulations are presented to evaluate the cost performance of the various approaches. q

show abstract

“…Home agents and foreign agents MUST support tunneling datagrams using IP in IP encapsulation [32]. Any mobile node that uses a co-located care-of address MUST support receiving datagrams tunneled using IP in IP encapsulation.…”

Section: Encapsulation Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nodes implementing tunneling SHOULD also implement the "tunnel soft state" mechanism [32], which allows ICMP error messages returned from the tunnel to correctly be reflected back to the original senders of the tunneled datagrams.…”

Section: Home Agent Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

IP Mobility Support for IPv4

2002

294

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IP Encapsulation within IP

Cited by 351 publications

References 8 publications

Mobility Support in IPv6

Mobility Support in IPv6

Algorithms and protocols for stateless constrained-based routing

IP Mobility Support for IPv4

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About