MIP4 Working Group V. Devarapalli
Internet-Draft Azaire Networks
Expires: December 15, 2006 June 13, 2006
Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Messages
draft-devarapalli-mip6-vsm-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 December 15, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
There is a need for vendor specific Mobility Header messages so that
Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol for research or
deployment purposes. This document defines a new vendor specific
mobility header message and a new mobility option.
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Messages June 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Vendor Specific Mobility Header message . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Messages June 2006
1. Introduction
Vendor specific messages have traditionally allowed vendors to
implement extensions to some protocols and distinguish themselves
from other vendors. These messages are clearly marked by a Vendor ID
that identifies the vendor. A particular vendor's implementation
identifies the vendor extension by recognizing the Vendor ID.
Implementations that do not recognize the Vendor ID either discard or
skip processing the message.
Mobile IPv6 [2] is being deployed and there is a need for vendor
specific Mobility Header messages so that vendors are able to extend
the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research or deployment purposes.
This document defines a new Mobility Header message, the Vendor
Specific Mobility message that can be sent at any time by the mobile
node, the home agent or the correspondent node. Since Mobility
Header messages cannot be combined and sent in one packet, there is
always only one Mobility Header message in any Mobile IPv6 packet.
Home agent or correspondent node implementations that do not
recognize the mobility message type, discard the message and send
Binding Error message as described in [2], with the Status field set
to 2 (unrecognized MH Type value). Mobile nodes that do not
recognize the mobility message type should discard the message and
send an ICMP Parameter problem with code 0.
This document also defines a new mobility option, the Vendor Specific
Mobility option, which can be carried in any Mobility Header message.
Mobility options, by definition, can be skipped if an implementation
does not recognize the mobility option type [2].
The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO
implementations [3].
Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious
interoperability issues if they are not used carefully. The vendor
specific extensions MUST be standardized in the IETF if they are to
be deployed in a large scale or if multiple vendors are involved in a
particular system or deployment. Experience has shown that vendor
specific extensions benefit from IETF review and standardization.
2. Terminology
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 [1].
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Messages June 2006
3. Vendor Specific Mobility Header message
The following illustrates the message format for the Vendor Specific
Mobility Header message. The 'MH Type' field in the Mobility Header
indicates that it is a Vendor Specific Mobility Header message.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Data .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved
A 16-bit reserved field set to zero by the sender and ignored by
the receiver.
Vendor ID
The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor
as defined by IANA.
Data
Vendor specific data that is carried in this message. The total
length is indicated by the 'Header Len' field in the Mobility
Header.
4. Vendor Specific Mobility Option
The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility
Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2.
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Messages June 2006
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Data .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility
option.
Length
A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding
the Type and Length fields.
Vendor ID
The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/
Organization as defined by IANA.
Data
Vendor specific data that is carried in this message.
5. Security Considerations
The Vendor Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner
similar to Binding Updates and Binding acknowledgements if it carries
information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can
affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent
node.
6. IANA Considerations
The Vendor Specific Mobility Header message defined in Section 3,
should have the type value allocated from the same space as the 'MH
Type' field in the Mobility Header [2].
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Messages June 2006
The Vendor Specific mobility option defined in Section 4, should have
the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options [2].
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with
whom the contents of this document were discussed first.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
8.2. Informative References
[3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
"Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
January 2005.
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Messages June 2006
Author's Address
Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
4800 Great America Pkwy
Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA
Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Messages June 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Devarapalli Expires December 15, 2006 [Page 8]