Abstract
The current Internet architecture was not designed to easily accommodate mobility because IP addresses are used both to identify and locate hosts. The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) decouples them by considering two types of addresses: EIDs that identify hosts, and RLOCs that identify network attachment points and are used as routing locators. LISP, with such separation in place, can also offer native mobility. LISP-MN is a particular case of LISP which specifies mobility. In this paper we provide a comprehensive tutorial on LISP-MN, showing its main features and how it compares to existing mobility protocols.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Eddy W.M. (2004) At what layer does mobility belong? IEEE Communications Magazine, 10(42): 155–159
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., & Lewis, D. (December 2011). LISP alternative topology (LISP-ALT). draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10 (work in progress).
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., & Lewis, D. (February 2012). Locator/ID separation protocol (LISP). draft-ietf-lisp-21, Internet Engineering Task Force (work in progress).
Fuller, V., & Farinacci, D. (January 2012). LISP map server interface. draft-ietf-lisp-ms-15, Internet Engineering Task Force (work in progress).
Johnson, D., Perkins, C., & Arkko, J. (June 2004). Mobility support in IPv6. RFC 3775.
Koodli, R. (2005). Fast handovers for mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6). RFC 4068.
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., & Fuller, V. (February 2012). Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6. draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-03, Internet Engineering Task Force (work in progress).
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., Sausez, D., & Bonaventure, O. (January 2012). LISP-Security (LISP-SEC). draft-ietf-lisp-sec-01 (work in progress).
Meyer, D., Lewis, D., & Farinacci, D. (October 2011). LISP mobile node. draft-meyer-lisp-mn-06, Internet Engineering Task Force (work in progress).
Moskowitz, R. (April 2008). Host identity protocol. RFC 5201.
Nordmark, E., & Bagnulo, M. (June 2009). Shim6: Level 3 multihoming shim protocol for IPv6. RFC 5533.
Pan, J., Jain, R., Paul, S., & So-In, C. (2010). MILSA: A new evolutionary architecture for scalability, mobility, and multihoming in the future internet. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC), Special issue on Routing Scalability.
Perkins, C. (August 2002). IP mobility support. RFC 3344.
Shoch, J. F. (1979). Inter-network naming, addressing, and routing. In IEEE Proceedings of COMPCON Fall 1978 (pp. 72–79). Also in Thurber, K. (ed.), Tutorial: Distributed processor communication architecture. IEEE Publ. #EHO 152-9 (pp. 280–287).
Tsirtsis, G. (2011). Flow bindings in mobile IPv6 and network mobility (NEMO) basic support. RFC 5648.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work has been partially supported by a Cisco Unsolicited Research Proposal Grant.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodríguez Natal, A., Jakab, L., Portolés, M. et al. LISP-MN: Mobile Networking Through LISP. Wireless Pers Commun 70, 253–266 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-012-0692-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-012-0692-5