BEHAVE Working Group B. Zhou Internet-Draft H. Deng Intended status: Informational China Mobile Expires: April 29, 2010 October 26, 2009 Requirements for Referral in Mobile Network, input to GROBJ BoF draft-bo-behave-ref-req-01 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009 Abstract This document lays out the requirements that need to be met by the potential referral modifications for the mobile network. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements of referral design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. R1 Standard referral format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. R2 Simplify ALG during NAT traversal . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. R3 Network inspection consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009 1. Introduction Mobile operators are using referrals in their network to make entities reachable straightforward. However, this simple approach is failed by deployment of firewall and translator (like NAT) in the network, in which causes the translation function happened during the communication. This document is intended to discuss about the requirements that need to be met by the potential referral modifications in the mobile network. 1.1. Conventions used in this document 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 [RFC2119]. Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009 2. Requirements of referral design 2.1. R1 Standard referral format The referral formats need to be standardized. Applications can understand the meaning of referral informed, such as IP address, possibly protocol and port numbers. However, there is an open question whether this standard referral design should be use for new applications only, or including all existing applications. 2.2. R2 Simplify ALG during NAT traversal There are middle boxes, like firewalls and translators, exist in the mobile network, which cause applications need to do translations, especially ALG. The cost of translation functions included ALG is huge for the mobile operator in terms of implementation, performance. Standard referral could simplify ALG implementation during NAT traversal in the mobile network. 2.3. R3 Network inspection consideration Operators sometimes need to inspect information or details during communication for administration motivations. If referral format is standardized, it is easy for operator to capture and investigate the communication information they required. Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009 3. Security Considerations This document does not create any new security considerations. Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009 4. IANA Considerations This document does not require any IANA actions. Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009 5. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Referral Requirements October 2009 Authors' Addresses Bo Zhou China Mobile Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xuanwu District Beijing 100053 China Email: zhouboyj@gmail.com Hui Deng China Mobile Unit2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave,Xuanwu District Beijing 100053 China Email: denghui02@gmail.com Zhou & Deng Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 8]