Mobile IPv6 Internet Draft B. Haley Document: draft-haley-mip6-mh-signaling-00.txt Hewlett-Packard Company Expires: July, 2005 February 2005 Mobility Header Signaling Message draft-haley-mip6-mh-signaling-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document specifies a new Mobility Header message type that can be used between a mobile node and home agent to signal an event that requires attention. Conventions used in this document Haley Expires - July 2005 [Page 1]
Mobility Header Signaling Message February 2005 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 [1]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Mobility Header Signaling Message..............................3 3. Sending Signaling Messages.....................................4 4. Receiving Signaling Messages...................................4 5. IANA Considerations............................................4 6. Security Considerations........................................5 7. References.....................................................5 7.1. Normative References......................................5 7.2. Informative references....................................5 Acknowledgments...................................................5 Author's Addresses................................................5 1. Introduction RFC 3775 [2] contains no provision to allow a home agent to inform a mobile node, or vice-versa, that there is an event that requires its attention. For example, a home agent may wish to handoff some of its mobile nodes to another home agent because it has come overloaded or it is going offline. This protocol describes a generic signaling message type that can be used to send messages between home agents and mobile nodes securely. This protocol does not describe the type of messages that might be exchanged, that information should be defined in the document for the specific Mobility option that will be used. Haley Expires - July 2005 [Page 2]
Mobility Header Signaling Message February 2005 2. Mobility Header Signaling Message The Mobility Header Signaling message is used by the home agent to signal the mobile node, or vice-versa, that there is an event that requires attention. Signaling messages are sent as described in Section 3. The message described below follows the Mobility Header format specified in Section 6.1 of [2]: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Proto | Header Len | MH Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Checksum | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | . . . Message Data . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Signaling Message uses the MH Type value 8 (TBD). When this value is indicated in the MH Type field, the format of the Message Data field in the Mobility Header is as follows: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Mobility options . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Reserved 16-bit field reserved for future use. The value MUST be initialized to zero by the sender, and MUST be ignored by the receiver. Haley Expires - July 2005 [Page 3]
Mobility Header Signaling Message February 2005 Mobility options Variable-length field of such length that the complete Mobility Header is an integer multiple of 8 octets long. This field contains zero of more TLV-encoded mobility options. The encoding and format of defined options MUST follow the format specified in Section 6.2 of [2]. The receiver MUST ignore and skip any options with it does not understand. This specification does not define any options valid for the Signaling message. If no options are present in this message, no padding is necessary and the Header Len field in the Mobility Header will be set to 0. 3. Sending Signaling Messages When sending a Signaling message, the sending node constructs the packet as it would any other Mobility Header, except the MH Type field MUST be set to 8 (TBD). Signaling messages SHOULD be subject to rate limiting in the same manner as is done for ICMPv6 messages [3]. 4. Receiving Signaling Messages Upon receiving a Signaling message, the Mobility Header MUST be verified as specified in [2], specifically: o The Checksum, MH type, Payload Proto and Header Len fields MUST meet the requirements of Section 9.2 of [2]. o The packet MUST be covered by the IPsec ESP SA in place for Binding Updates and Acknowledgements (Section 5.1 of [2]). If the packet is dropped due to the above tests, the receiving node MUST follow the processing rules as Section 9.2 of [2] defines. For example, it MUST send a Binding Error message with the Status field set to 2 (unrecognized MH Type value) if it does not support the message type. 5. IANA Considerations A new Mobility Header type is required for the following new message described in Section 2: Haley Expires - July 2005 [Page 4]
Mobility Header Signaling Message February 2005 8 Signaling message 6. Security Considerations As with other messages in [2], the Signaling message MUST use the home agent to mobile node ESP encryption SA for confidentiality protection, and MUST use the home agent to mobile node ESP authentication SA for integrity protection. 7. References 7.1. 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 Arkko, J., "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June, 2004. [3] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2463, December 1998. 7.2. Informative references Acknowledgments Thanks to Hui Deng, James Kempf and Vijay Devarapalli for their initial review of the draft. Author's Addresses Brian Haley Hewlett-Packard Company 110 Spitbrook Road Nashua, NH 03062, USA Email: Brian.Haley@hp.com 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 Haley Expires - July 2005 [Page 5]
Mobility Header Signaling Message February 2005 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 (2004). 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. Haley Expires - July 2005 [Page 6]