IETF MEXT Working Group H. Soliman
Internet-Draft Elevate Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track G. Tsirtsis
Expires: August 13, 2010 Qualcomm
N. Montavont
IT/TB
G. Giaretta
Qualcomm
K. Kuladinithi
University of Bremen
February 9, 2010
Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support
draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-05.txt
Abstract
This document introduces extensions to Mobile IPv6 that allow nodes
to bind one or more flows to a care-of address. These extensions
allow multihomed nodes to instruct home agents and other Mobile IPv6
entities to direct inbound flows to specific addresses.
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 August 13, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
Table of Contents
1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Mobile IPv6 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Definition Update for Binding Identifier Mobility
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Flow Identification Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Flow Identification Sub-Options definition . . . . . . 11
4.2.2. Flow Summary Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. Flow Bindings entries list and its relationship to
Binding Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Protocol operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.1. Preferred Care-of address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.1. Sending BU with BID Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.2. Sending BU with Flow Identification Mobility
Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.3. Sending BU with a Flow Summary Option . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.4. Removing flow bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.5. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.6. Receiving Binding Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.7. Return Routability Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. HA, MAP, and CN Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.1. Handling Binding Identifier Mobility Options . . . . . 24
5.3.2. Handling Flow Identification Mobility Options . . . . 25
5.3.3. Handling Flow Summary Mobility Option . . . . . . . . 28
5.3.4. Flow Binding Removals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3.5. Sending Binding Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3.6. Packet Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
1. Requirements notation
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].
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
2. Introduction
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775], DSMIPv6 [RFC5555] and NEMO Basic Support
[RFC3963] allow a mobile node / mobile router to manage its mobility
using the binding update message, which binds one care-of address to
one home address and associated mobile networks. The binding update
message can be sent to the home agent. In Mobile IPv6, the binding
update can also be sent to correspondent node or to a mobility anchor
point (see [RFC5380]). The semantics of the binding update are
limited to care-of address changes. That is, [RFC3775], [RFC5555],
and [RFC3963] do not allow a mobile node / mobile router to bind more
than one address to the home address. In [RFC5648] Mobile IPv6 and
NEMO Basic Support are extended to allow the binding of more than one
care-of address to a home address. This specification further
extends Mobile IPv6, DSMIPv6, and NEMO Basic Support to allow it to
specify policies associated with each binding. A policy can contain
a request for special treatment of a particular IPv4 or IPv6 flow,
which is viewed as a group of packets matching a traffic selector.
Hence, this specification allows a mobile node / mobile router to
bind a particular flow to a care-of address without affecting other
flows using the same home address. In addition, this specification
allows to bind a particular flow to a particular care-of address
directly with correspondent node and mobility agents (i.e., home
agents [RFC3775] and mobility anchor points [RFC5380]).
In this document, a flow is defined as a set of IP packets matching a
traffic selector. A traffic selector can identify the source and
destination IP addresses, transport protocol number, the source and
destination port numbers and other fields in IP and higher layer
headers. This specification, however, does not define traffic
selectors and it is assumed that one or more ways of defining traffic
selectors are going to be defined in other specifications. This
specification, however, does define the traffic selector sub-option
format to be used for any defined traffic selectors.
Using the flow identifier option introduced in this specification a
mobile node / mobile router can bind one or more flows to a care-of
address while maintaining the reception of other flows on another
care-of address. The mobile node / mobile router assembles the flow
binding request based local policies, link characteristics and the
types of applications running at the time. Such policies are outside
the scope of this document.
It should be noted that the flow identification mobility option can
be associated with any binding update, whether it is sent to a
mobility agent or a correspondent node.
Note that per-packet load balancing may have negative impacts on TCP
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
congestion avoidance mechanisms as it is desirable to maintain order
between packets belonging to the same TCP connection. This behaviour
is specified in [RFC2702]. Other negative impacts are also foreseen
for other types of real time connections due to the potential
variations in round trip time between packets. Moreover, per-packet
load-balancing will negatively affect traffic with anti-reply
protection mechanisms. Hence, per-packet load balancing is not
envisioned in this specification.
In the rest of the document, the term "mobile node" is used to
designate either a mobile node as defined in [RFC3775] and [RFC5648],
or a mobile router as defined in [RFC3963] unless stated otherwise.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
3. Terminology
Terms used in this document are defined in [RFC3753] and [RFC4885].
The following terms are also used in this document:
Flow: A flow is a sequence of packets for which the MN desires
special handling either by the HA, the CN or the MAP.
Traffic Selector: One or more parameters that can be matched
against fields in the packet's headers for the purpose of
classifying a packet. Examples of such parameters include the
source and destination IP addresses, transport protocol number,
the source and destination port numbers and other fields in IP and
higher layer headers.
Flow binding: It consists of a traffic selector, and an action.
IP packets from one or more flows that match the traffic selector
associated with the flow binding, are processed according to the
action associated with the same flow binding.
Flow Identifier: A flow identifier uniquely identifies a flow
binding associated with a mobile node. It is generated by a
mobile node and is cached in the table of flow binding entries
maintained by the MN, HA, CN or MAP.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
4. Mobile IPv6 Extensions
This section introduces extensions to Mobile IPv6 that are necessary
for supporting the flow binding mechanism described in this document.
4.1. Definition Update for Binding Identifier Mobility Option
This specification updates the definition of the Binding Identifier
Mobility option defined in [RFC5648], as follows:
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 = 35 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding ID (BID) | Status |H| BID-PRI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+
+ +
: IPv4 or IPv6 care-of address (CoA) :
+ +
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: The Binding Identifier Mobility option
BID-PRI
This is a 7-bit unsigned integer placing each BID to a relative
priority with other registered BIDs. Value '0' is reserved and
SHOULD NOT be used. A lower number in this field indicates a
higher priority, while BIDs with the same BID-PRI value have
equal priority meaning that, the BID used is an implementation
issue. This is consistent with current practice in packet
classifiers.
4.2. Flow Identification Mobility Option
The flow identification mobility option is a new mobility option
[RFC3775] and it is included in the binding update and
acknowledgement messages. This option contains information that
allows the receiver of a binding update to install policies on a
traffic flow and route it to a given care-of address. Multiple
options may exist within the same binding update message. The
alignment requirement for this option is 2n.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Len | FID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FID-PRI | Action | Rsvd | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-options (optional) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: The Flow Identification Mobility Option
Option Type
To be assigned by IANA
Option Len
Length of the option in octets as per [RFC3775].
FID
The Flow Identifier field is a 16-bit unsigned integer that
includes the unique identifier for the flow binding. This
field is used to refer to an existing flow binding or to create
a new flow binding. The value of this field is set by the
mobile node. FID = 0 is reserved and SHOULD NOT be used.
FID-PRI
This is an 8-bit unsigned priority field to indicate the
priority of a particular option. This field is needed in cases
where two different flow descriptions in two different options
overlap. The priority field decides which policy should be in
those cases. A lower number in this field indicates a higher
priority. Value '0' is reserved and SHOULD NOT be used. FID-
PRI MUST be unique to each of the flows pertaining to a given
MN.
Action
This 8-bit unsigned integer field specifies the action that
needs to be taken by the receiver of the binding update
containing the flow identification option. The details of
these requests are discussed below. The following values are
reserved for the Action field in this option:
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
0 Reserved and SHOULD NOT be used
1 'Discard'. This value indicates a request to discard all
packets in the flow described by the option. No BIDs are
associated with this Action. Care should be taken when
using this Action as it will lead to disrupting applications
communication. Implementations may consider notifying
impacted applications in mobile nodes.
2 'Forward'. This value indicates a request to send the
flow to one or more addresses indicated in the binding
reference sub-option (see Section 4.2.1.3). One or more
BIDs MUST be associated with this Action. If only one BID
is associated with this action then it is essentially a
request to forward packets to that CoA, otherwise matching
packets are replicated and forwarded to all of the indicated
CoAs. Care should be taken when multiple BIDs are used in
combination with the 'Forward' action as some transport
layers may not be able to handle packet duplication and this
can affect their performance.
3-255 Reserved for future use
Rsvd
This field is unused. It SHOULD be set to zero by the sender
and ignored by the receiver.
Status
This 8-bit unsigned integer field indicates the success or
failure of the flow binding operation for the particular flow
in the option. This field is not relevant to the binding
update message as a whole or to other flow identification
options. This field is only relevant when included in the
Binding Acknowledgement message and must be ignored in the
binding update message. The following values are reserved for
the status field within the flow identification mobility
option:
0 Flow binding successful
128 Administratively prohibited
129 Flow binding rejected, reason unspecified
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
130 Flow identification mobility option malformed
131 BID not found
132 FID not found
133 Traffic selector format not supported
134 Discard function not supported
135 Forward function not supported
Sub-options (optional)
zero or more sub-options, defined in Section 4.2.1
4.2.1. Flow Identification Sub-Options definition
Flow identification sub-options are encoded within the remaining
space of the flow identification mobility option, using a sub-option
type-length-value (TLV) format 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Opt Type |Sub-Opt Length | Sub-Option Data...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Flow Identification Sub-Option format
Sub-opt Type
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the sub-option Type. When
processing a flow identification mobility option containing an
option for which the sub-option Type value is not recognized by
the receiver, the receiver MUST quietly ignore and skip over
the option, correctly handling any remaining sub-options in the
same option.
Sub-opt Len
8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of
the flow identification sub-option. This field indicates the
length of the sub-option not including the Sub-opt Type and
Sub-opt Length fields. Note that Sub-opt Type '0'
(Section 4.2.1.1) is a special case that does not take a Sub-
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
opt Length field.
Sub-Option Data
A variable length field that contains data specific to the sub-
option
The following subsections specify the sub-option types which are
currently defined for use in the flow identification option.
Implementations MUST silently ignore any sub-options that they do not
understand.
These sub-options may have alignment requirements. Following the
convention in [RFC3775], regarding mobility options, these sub-
options are aligned in a packet so that multi-octet values within the
sub-option Data field of each sub-option fall on natural boundaries
(i.e., fields of width n octets are placed at an integer multiple of
n octets from the start of the header, for n = 1, 2, 4, or 8) .
4.2.1.1. Pad1
The Pad1 sub-option does not have any alignment requirements. Its
format is as follows:
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Opt Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-opt Type
0
NOTE! the format of the Pad1 sub-option is a special case - it has
neither sub-option Length nor sub-option Data fields.
The Pad1 sub-option is used to insert one octet of padding in the
flow identification option. If more than one octet of padding is
required, the PadN sub-option, described next, should be used rather
than multiple Pad1 sub-options.
4.2.1.2. PadN
The PadN sub-option does not have any alignment requirements. Its
format is as follows:
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - - -
| Sub-Opt Type | Sub-Opt Len | Option Data
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - - -
Sub-opt Type
1
Sub-opt Len
set to the length of the sub-option
Sub-opt Data
0 or more bytes set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the
receiver.
The PadN sub-option is used to insert two or more octets of padding
in the flow identification mobility option. For N octets of padding,
the sub-option Length field contains the value N, and the sub-option
data consists of N-2 zero-valued octets. PadN sub-option data MUST
be ignored by the receiver.
4.2.1.3. Binding Reference Sub-option
This section introduces the binding reference sub-option, which may
be included in the flow identification mobility option. A node MUST
NOT include more than one binding reference sub-options in a given
flow binding identification option. The binding reference sub-option
includes one or more BIDs defined in MCoA [RFC5648]. When this sub-
option is included in the flow identification mobility option it
associates the flow described with one or more registered BIDs.
When binding a flow using this sub-option, the binding identifier
mobility option, defined in [RFC5648], MUST be included in either the
same or an earlier BU. The binding reference sub-option is shown
below. The alignment requirement for this sub-option is 2n.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sub-opt Type | Sub-Opt Len | BID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BID ........
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
Figure 4: The Binding Reference sub-option
Sub-opt Type
2
Sub-opt Len
Variable
BID
A 16-bit unsigned integer indicating the BID that the mobile
node wants to associate with the flow identification option.
One or more BID fields can be included in this sub-option.
Since each BID is 2 bytes long, the value of the Sub-opt Len
field indicates the number of BIDs present. Number of BIDs =
Sub-opt Len/2.
4.2.1.4. Traffic Selector sub-option
The traffic selector sub-option includes the parameters used to match
packets for a specific flow binding. A node MUST NOT include more
than one traffic selector sub-option in a given flow binding
identification option.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sub-opt Type | Sub-Opt Len | TS Format | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Selector ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: The Traffic Selector sub-option
Sub-opt Type
3
Sub-opt Len
variable
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
TS Format
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic Selector Format.
Value "0" is reserved and SHOULD NOT be used.
Reserved
An 8-bit reserved field. It SHOULD be set to zero by the sender
and ignored by the receiver.
Traffic Selector
A variable length field, the format and content of which is out of
scope for this specification.
4.2.2. Flow Summary Mobility Option
The flow summary mobility option is a new mobility option [RFC3775],
which includes one or more flow identifiers (FIDs) for the purpose of
refreshing their state. A node MUST NOT include more than one flow
summary mobility option in a given binding update message. The
alignment requirement for this option is 2n.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Len | FID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FID ........
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Figure 6: The Flow Summary Mobility Option
Option Type
To be assigned by IANA
Option Length
Length of the option in octets as per [RFC3775]
FID
A 16-bit unsigned integer indicating a registered FID. One or
more FID fields can be included in this option. Number of FIDs
= Option Len/2
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
4.3. Flow Bindings entries list and its relationship to Binding Cache
The conceptual mobile IPv6 binding cache was defined in [RFC3775] to
identify the mobile IP state maintained by the mobile node, mobility
agent, and correspondent node. The binding cache includes, between
others, the mobile node's home address, the registered care-of
address, and the lifetime of the binding. The binding cache has been
extended by [RFC5648] to include more than one care-of addresses and
to associate each of them with a Binding Identifier (BID).
This specification does not modify the mobile IPv6 binding cache any
further.
Flow bindings can be thought of as a conceptual list of entries that
is separate from the binding cache. The flow bindings list contains
an entry for each of the registered flow bindings. Flow binding
entries can point to an entry in the binding cache by means of the
BID. Each flow binding entry includes the following parameters :
o FID (Flow Identifier): For a given mobile node, identified by its
primary home address, the FID MUST uniquely identify an entry,
i.e. a unique flow binding. Each mobile node can only have a
single entry identified by a given FID at any one time. A given
FID number space is used for all the addresses associated to a
given MN by the HA (e.g., via [RFC3963]). Different mobile nodes
use the same FID number space.
o A Traffic Selector: Included in a traffic selector sub-option.
o BID(s): The list of BIDs associated with the entry as defined by
the binding reference sub-option included in the FID option that
created it.
o Action: The action associated with a given entry as defined by the
Action field of the FID option that created it
o Active/Inactive flag: This flag indicates whether the entry is
active or inactive.
o FID-PRI: This field indicates the priority of the flow and is used
to break the tie between overlapping flows.
The flow bindings list is associated with a given mobile node, and
the correspondent binding cache. An entry in the flow bindings list,
however, is identified by the FID and the list is ordered according
to the FID-PRI field as defined in the FID option that created each
entry.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
For entries that take BIDs (i.e., entries that do not indicate a
'Discard' action), a valid BID is required to make the entry
'Active'. If all of the BIDs pointed to by a given entry are
deregistered [RFC5648], the flow binding entry becomes 'Inactive', in
other words it does not affect data traffic. Note that if the action
parameter in an entry indicates 'Forward' then the entry becomes
'Inactive' only if all of the BIDs are deregistered. If only some of
the BIDs are still valid, the invalid BIDs are simply ignored.
Also note that the state described in this section is maintained by
the mobile node as well as in mobility agents and correspondent
nodes. As such the mobile node is fully aware of which are the valid
BIDs at any time and which flow binding entries are active/inactive.
Section 5 defines how these flow binding entries are manipulated by
the mobile node in detail.
As an example the following represents an ordered flow binding entry
table for a mobile node that has registered multiple care-of
addresses and flow bindings.
FID-PRI FID Traffic Selector BIDs Action A/I
------- --- ---------------- ---- ------- ------
10 4 TCP 2 Forward Active
20 3 srcAddr=IPx N/A Discard Active
30 2 srcAddr=IPy 4 Forward Inactive
40 5 UDP 1,3 Forward Active
Ordered Flow Binding Entries
According to the above list of flow binding entries, all TCP traffic
will match the first entry, and according to the Action indicated it
will be forwarded to BID2, corresponding to a given care-of address
(IP3), as shown below. Any traffic that is not TCP, but has as
source address IPx will match the second entry, and according to the
associated Action it will be discarded. Note that any TCP traffic
with source address IPx will match the first entry and thus it will
be forwarded as per that entry.
The third entry is marked as Inactive since the BID 4 does not exist
in the ordered list of BID entries below. Inactive entries do not
affect traffic, i.e., packets are not matched against them.
Any UDP traffic that does not match any of the earlier entries will
match the forth rule and according to the Action indicated, it will
be replicated and forwarded to BIDs 1 and 3, corresponding to care-of
addresses IP1 and IP2 shown below.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
Finally any remaining packets that do not match any of the entries
above will be simply forwarded to the care-of address indicated by
the highest order BID in the table below. In the example, such
packets will be forwarded to BID1 corresponding to care-of address
IP1.
BID-PRI BID CoA
--------- --- ---
20 1 IP1
30 3 IP2
30 2 IP3
Ordered BID Entries
Mobility agent and corresponding node implementations should take
care to avoid flow binding rules affecting the fundamental operation
of Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. In particular, flow binding rules
MUST NOT apply to Mobile IPv6 signaling generated by mobility agents
and corresponding nodes communicating with a given mobile node, since
that could adversely affect the operation of the protocol. Other,
non Mobile IPv6 traffic generated by these entities SHOULD be matched
against the mobile node's flow binding rules as normal.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
5. Protocol operations
5.1. General
This specification introduces a flow bindings list of entries and an
ordered list of flow binding identifiers, allowing mobile nodes to
associate flow binding policies with the registered care-of
addresses.
The flow identification mobility option defines how the mobile node
can control a set of flow binding entries maintained in a mobility
agent, or correspondent node. The fields of the flow identification
mobility option are necessary for ordering flow identification
mobility options, indicating the sort of action that should be
undertaken to the recipient's flow binding list of entries or for
carrying the results of such a petition.
This specification allows mobile nodes to direct flows to a
particular care-of address. The granularity of what constitutes a
flow depends on the traffic selector used.
The remainder of this section discusses how mobile nodes can use the
options and sub-options defined in this document when sending binding
updates to the correspondent node, home agent, or mobility anchor
point. In addition, refresh, deletion, and modification of flow
binding entries are all discussed below.
5.1.1. Preferred Care-of address
Any node that supports this specification MUST maintain an ordered
list of care-of addresses for each mobile node it maintains a list of
flow bindings for. The ordered list of care-of addresses is built
based on the BID-PRI field of the binding identifier mobility option
(see Section 4.1).
The ordered list of BIDs is used to determine how to forward a packet
to a given mobile node when the packet does not match any of the flow
binding entries defined in Section 4.3. A packet that does not match
any of the flow binding entries SHOULD be forwarded to the care-of
address identified by the BID with the highest priority i.e., lowest
BID-PRI value.
5.2. Mobile Node Considerations
This specification allows the mobile node to maintain several
bindings with its mobility agent, and correspondent nodes and to
direct packets to different care-of addresses according to flow
bindings. This section details the mobile node operations necessary
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
to implement this specification.
The mobility agent and correspondent node list of flow bindings is
manipulated by the mobile node, via flow identification and flow
summary mobility options included in binding update messages. Each
flow binding update can add, modify, refresh, or delete a given
binding. More than one flow identification mobility options MAY be
included in the same binding update but each of them MUST include a
different FID. In other words, two flow identification options in
the same message can not be about the same flow binding.
All flow binding state MUST be refreshed in every binding update the
mobile node sends. Any previously registered flow binding that is
not included in a given binding update will be deleted. So, any flow
bindings that are not added or modified by a flow identification
mobility option, but have previously registered and need to be
maintained MUST be included in a flow summary mobility option. Only
one flow summary mobility option can be included in a given binding
update.
5.2.1. Sending BU with BID Options
This specification (see Section 4.1) updates the definition of the
binding identifier mobility option, originally defined in [RFC5648].
According to this specification the BID option includes a BID-PRI
field assigning each registered care-of address a priority, and thus
placing them in an ordered list as also described in Section 4.3.
Mobile nodes supporting this specification MUST use the BID option
format defined in Section 4.1. Mobile nodes MUST also register all
care-of addresses using the updated BID option format, either in the
same BU as any flow identification mobility options using them, or in
earlier BUs.
5.2.2. Sending BU with Flow Identification Mobility Options
5.2.2.1. New Flow Bindings
When adding a new flow binding, a mobile node sends the flow
identification mobility option in the binding update, with the FID
field set to a value that is not already present in the list of flow
binding entries maintained by the receiver. The care-of address(es)
associated with each flow identification mobility options in the
binding update, must be logically registered by this binding update,
or must have already been registered by the receiver of the binding
update in an earlier binding update, as defined in Section 5.2.1.
The flow identification mobility option MUST include a unique flow
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
identifier in the FID field. The FID needs only be unique for the
receiver of the binding update and for the same sender, i.e. the same
FID can be used across different receivers of the binding update, for
the same sender.
The FID-PRI field is set to the desired unique priority of the
FID, defining the order of the flow binding to be added in the
list of flow binding entries as defined in Section 4.3.
The Action field is set to one of the defined action codes (see
Section 4.2).
The Status field is set to zero in all binding update messages.
Since this flow identification mobility option is requesting the
addition of a new flow binding in the list of flow bindings
maintained by the receiver, the mobile node MUST include exactly one
Traffic Selector sub-option (see Section 4.2.1.4) describing the flow
associated with the new flow binding. The TS Format field of the
Traffic Selector sub-option MUST be set to the non-zero value of the
format used by the mobile node.
The mobile node MAY also include up to one BID Reference sub-option
(see Section 4.2.1.3) to associate the flow binding with a given set
of BIDs and corresponding CoAs. Depending on the Action field of the
flow identification mobility option, the following rules MUST be
followed with respect to the binding reference sub-option:
- if the Action indicates 'Discard', the binding reference sub-
option SHOULD NOT be included. If it is included it will be
ignored by the receiver.
- if the Action indicates 'Forward', a single binding reference
sub-option with one or more BIDs MUST be included.
5.2.2.2. Updating Flow Bindings
Flow binding modification is essentially a process where parameters
associated with an existing flow binding in the list of flow binding
entries is replaced by parameters included in the flow identification
mobility option, and the same FID is maintained. With this procedure
the mobile node can change the action, the priority, the BID, and/or
the traffic selector associated with a flow binding.
To modify an existing flow binding the mobile node MUST send a
binding update with a flow identification option, with the FID field
set to one of the FID values already in the list of flow binding
entries.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
The FID-PRI and Action fields MUST be set to the priority value
for the flow binding entry.
The Status field is set to zero since this option is in a binding
update.
The mobile node MAY include exactly one traffic selector sub-option
(see Section 4.2.1.4) describing the updated flow to be associated
with the flow binding. The mobile node MAY, however, omit the
traffic selector sub-option if it wants the traffic selector
currently associated with the flow binding entry identified by the
FID field to be maintained.
The mobile node MAY include exactly one binding reference sub-option
(see Section 4.2.1.3) to associate the existing flow binding with a
new set of CoAs. If the mobile node includes a binding reference
sub-option then it should follow the rules described in
Section 5.2.2.1. The mobile node MAY omit the binding reference sub-
option if it wants the BIDs currently associated with the flow
binding entry identified by the FID field to be maintained.
Note that it is also possible for the mobile node to effectively
modify the effect of a flow binding entry without actually changing
the entry itself. This can be done by changing the CoA associated
with a given BID, which is a process defined in detail in [RFC5648].
5.2.3. Sending BU with a Flow Summary Option
When the mobile node sends a binding update it MUST refresh all flow
bindings it wants to maintain even if it does not want to change any
of their parameters.
To refresh an existing flow binding the mobile node MUST send a
binding update with a flow summary option. The flow summary option
MUST include one or more FID fields as indicated in Section 4.2.2.
Each FID field included MUST be set to one of the FID values already
in the list of flow binding entries.
Any flow bindings (active or inactive) that are not included in a
binding update will be removed from the list of flow binding entries.
Note that any inactive flow bindings, i.e., flow bindings without
associated BIDs that are marked as Inactive in the list of flow
binding entries (see Section 4.3), MUST also be refreshed, or
modified, to be maintained. If they are not included in a BU they
will be removed.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
5.2.4. Removing flow bindings
Removal of flow binding entries is performed implicitly by omission
of a given FID from a binding update.
To remove a flow binding the MN simply sends a binding update that
includes flow identification and flow summary mobility options for
all the FIDs that need to be refreshed, modified, or added, and
simply omits any FIDs that need to be removed.
Note that a mobile node can also render a flow binding inactive by
removing the BIDs associated with it, without removing the flow
binding itself. The procedure for removing a BID is defined in
detail in [RFC5648].
When all the BIDs associated with a flow binding are removed, the
flow binding MUST be marked as inactive in the list of flow binding
entries as shown in Section 4.3. In other words the state associated
with the flow binding MUST be maintained but it does no longer affect
the mobile node's traffic. The MN can return an inactive flow
binding to the active state by using the flow binding modification
process described in Section 5.2.2.2, to associate it again with one
or more valid BIDs. Remember that flow bindings indicating a
'Discard' action do not take BIDs and thus cannot be rendered
inactive. Instead these entries can only be removed by omitting
their FID from a subsequent BU.
5.2.5. Returning Home
This specification is compatible to the home registration procedures
defined in [RFC3775] and [RFC5648]. More specifically, if the mobile
node performs an [RFC3775] style deregistration, all of its bindings,
including flow bindings are deleted. If the mobile node, however,
performs an [RFC5648] style home registration, then the home link is
associated with a specific BID and so, as far as this specification
is concerned, it is treated as any other link associated with a given
BID.
5.2.6. Receiving Binding Acknowledgements
According to [RFC3775] all nodes are required to silently ignore
mobility options not understood while processing binding updates. As
such a mobile node receiving a Binding Acknowledgement in response to
the transmission of a binding update MUST determine if the Binding
Acknowledgement contains a copy of every flow identification mobility
options included in the binding update. A Binding Acknowledgement
without flow identification option(s), in response to a Binding
Update with flow identification mobility option, would indicate
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
inability (or unwillingness) on behalf of the source node to support
the extensions presented in this document.
If a received Binding Acknowledgement contains a copy of each flow
identification mobility option that was sent within the binding
update, the status field of each flow identification option indicates
the status of the flow binding on the distant node.
5.2.7. Return Routability Procedure
A mobile node may perform route optimization with correspondent nodes
as defined in [RFC3775]. Route optimization allows a mobile node to
bind a care-of address to a home address in order to allow the
correspondent node to direct the traffic to the current location of
the mobile node. Before sending a Binding Update to correspondent
node, the Return Routability Procedure needs to be performed between
the mobile node and the correspondent node.This procedure is not
affected by the extensions defined in this document.
5.3. HA, MAP, and CN Considerations
This specification allows the mobility agents (Home Agents and
Mobility Anchor Points), and correspondent nodes to maintain several
flow bindings for a given home address and to direct packets to
different care-of addresses according to flow bindings. This section
details the home agent operations necessary to implement this
specification. These operations are identical for MAPs and CNs
unless otherwise stated.
Note that route optimization is only defined for mobile nodes (MIPv6
[RFC3775]), and not mobile routers (NEMOv6 [RFC3963]). Thus, these
sections only apply to correspondent nodes with respect to mobile
nodes and not for mobile routers.
5.3.1. Handling Binding Identifier Mobility Options
This specification (see Section 4.1) updates the definition of the
binding identifier mobility option, originally defined in [RFC5648].
According to this specification the BID option includes a BID-PRI
field assigning each registered care-of address a priority, and thus
placing them in an ordered list (see Section 4.3).
Home agents receiving BUs including BID options and flow
identification options MUST logically process BID options first.
This is because BID Reference sub-options included in the flow
identification mobility options might refer to BIDs defined in BID
options included in the same message.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
The BID option is processed as defined in [RFC5648] but then the BID
to care-of address mapping is placed in an ordered list according to
the BID-PRI field of the BID option.
Binding Identifier registrations and deregistrations indirectly
affect the MN's flow binding entries. The home agent MUST update the
flow binding entries table accordingly as BIDs are added or removed (
[RFC5648]). For example, as discussed in Section 4.3, if all of the
BIDs associated with a given flow binding entry are removed (i.e.,
become invalid) the entry MUST be marked as inactive. While if any
of the invalid BIDs associated with an inactive flow binding entry
are registered (i.e., become valid), the entry MUST be marked as
active.
5.3.2. Handling Flow Identification Mobility Options
When the home agent receives a binding update which includes at least
one flow identification mobility option, it first performs the
operation described in section 10.3.1 of RFC3775, followed by the
operations defined in Section 5.3.1 of this document.
Home agents that do not support this specification will ignore the
flow identification mobility options and all their sub-options,
having no effect on the operation of the rest of the protocol.
If the binding update is accepted, and the home agent is willing to
support flow bindings for this MN, the home agent checks the flow
identification mobility options.
If more than one flow identification mobility option in the same BU,
has the same value in the FID field, all the flow identification
mobility options MUST be rejected.
If all FID fields have different values the flow identification
mobility options can be processed further and in any order, as
defined by the following subsections.
5.3.2.1. Handling new FIDs
If the FID field of the flow identification mobility option is not
already present in the list of flow binding entries for this mobile
node, then this is a request for a new entry.
If the flow identification mobility option does not include a traffic
selector sub-option, the home agent MUST reject this request by
copying the flow identification mobility option in the BA, and
setting the Status field to the value defined in Figure 2 for "Flow
identification option malformed".
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
If the flow identification option does include a traffic selector
sub-option, but the format indicated in the TS Format field is not
supported, the home agent MUST reject this request by copying the
flow identification mobility option in the BA, and setting the Status
field to the value defined in Figure 2 for "Traffic Selector format
not supported".
Then the home agent MUST check the Action field in combination with
the Binding Reference sub-option if present.
- if the Action indicates 'Discard',
Any binding reference sub-options that might be present SHOULD be
ignored.
The home agent SHOULD add a new entry in the mobile node's list of
flow binding entries, as defined below.
- if the Action indicates 'Forward",
If the Binding reference sub-option is not included, the home
agent MUST reject this request by copying the flow identification
mobility option in the BA, and setting the Status field to the
value defined for "Flow identification mobility option malformed"
in Section 4.2.
If the binding reference sub-option is present and includes one or
more BIDs that are not present in the binding cache of the mobile
node the home agent MUST reject this request by copying the flow
identification option in the BA, and setting the Status field to
the value defined for "BID not found" in Section 4.2.
If the binding reference sub-option is present and includes one or
more BIDs, and the BIDs exist in the mobile node's binding cache,
the home agent SHOULD add a new entry in the mobile node's list of
flow binding entries, as defined below.
When the home agent decides to add an entry in the mobile node's list
of flow binding entries, as discussed above, it MUST do it according
to the following rules: The entry MUST be placed according to the
order indicated by the FID-PRI field of the flow identification
mobility option and it MUST include:
the FID as a key to the entry
The traffic selector included in the corresponding sub-option
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
the action indicated in the Action field
the BIDs, depending on action field, indicated in the binding
reference sub-option
the entry MUST be marked as Active, as shown in Section 4.3
5.3.2.2. Handling known FIDs
If the FID field of the flow identification mobility option is
already present in the list of flow binding entries for this mobile
node, then this is a request to update the existing entry.
The flow binding modification is essentially a process where
parameters associated with an existing flow binding entry are
replaced by the parameters included in a flow identification mobility
option with the same FID as the existing entry.
The home agent MUST:
Change the priority of the entry according to the FID-PRI field of
the flow identification mobility option.
Change the action associated with the entry according to the
Action field of the flow identification mobility option.
Since this flow identification mobility option is designed to update
an existing entry it may not include a traffic selector sub-option.
If a traffic selector sub-option is not included in the flow
identification mobility option, then the traffic selector already
associated with entry MUST be maintained,
otherwise the traffic selector in the entry MUST be replaced by
the traffic selector in the sub-option.
Like Section 5.3.2.1, if the Action field in the flow identification
mobility option is set to 'Discard' if a binding reference sub-option
is included in the option, it SHOULD be ignored; and any BIDs
associated with the existing flow binding entry SHOULD be removed.
Unlike Section 5.3.2.1, however, if the Action field in the flow
identification mobility option is set to 'Forward', and since this
flow identification mobility option is designed to update an existing
entry, it may not include a binding reference sub-option.
If a binding reference sub-option is not included in the flow
identification mobility option, then the BIDs already associated
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
with entry MUST be maintained,
otherwise the BIDs in the entry MUST be replaced by the BIDs in
the sub-option.
5.3.3. Handling Flow Summary Mobility Option
When the home agent receives a binding update which includes a flow
summary mobility option, it first performs the operation described in
section 10.3.1 of RFC3775. Binding update messages including more
than one flow summary mobility option MUST be rejected. A de-
registration binding update (with a zero lifetime) would result in
deleting all bindings, including all flow bindings regardless of the
presence of the flow summary mobility option.
If the value of any of the FID fields included in the flow summary
mobility option is not present in the list of flow binding entries
for this mobile node, the home agent MUST reject this flow binding
refresh by including a flow identification mobility option in the BA
for each FID that is not found, and by setting the FID field to the
value of the FID that is not found and the Status field to the value
defined for "FID not found" in Section 4.2.
If the value of the FID field is present in the mobile nodes list of
flow binding entries the, home agent SHOULD refresh the flow binding
entry identified by the FID without changing any of the other
parameters associated with it.
5.3.4. Flow Binding Removals
Removal of flow bindings is performed implicitly by omission of a
given FID from a binding update.
When a valid binding update is received, any registered FIDs that are
not explicitly referred to in a flow identification mobility option
or in a flow summary mobility option, MUST be removed from the list
of flow binding entries for the mobile node.
5.3.5. Sending Binding Acknowledgements
Upon the reception of a binding update, the home agent is required to
send back a Binding Acknowledgment. The status code in the Binding
Acknowledgement must be set as recommended in [RFC3775]. This status
code does not give information on the success or failure of flow
bindings.
In order to inform the mobile node about the status of the flow
binding(s) requested by a mobile node, flow identification options
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
SHOULD be included in the Binding Acknowledgement message.
Specifically, the home agent SHOULD copy each flow identification
mobility option received in the binding update and set its status
code to an appropriate value. If an operation requested in a flow
identification option by a mobile node is performed successfully by
the home agent, the status field on the copied flow identification
mobility option in the BA, SHOULD be set to the value defined for
"Flow binding successful" in Section 4.2, otherwise it SHOULD be set
to one of the rejection codes also defined in Section 4.2.
Section 5.3.2 identifies a number of cases where specific error codes
should be used.
Home agents that support this specification MAY refuse to maintain
flow bindings by setting the status field of any flow identification
mobility options to the value defined for "Administratively
prohibited" in Section 4.2, or by just ignoring all the flow binding
options.
Note that BID options and their Status field are handled as defined
in [RFC5648].
5.3.6. Packet Processing
This section defines packet processing rules according to this
specification. This specification does not change any of the packet
interception rules defined in [RFC3775], and [RFC5555]. These rules
apply to HAs, MAPs, and CNs, as part of the routing process for any
packet with destination address set to a valid home address of the
mobile node. For nodes other than CNs this also applies to packets
with destination address set to an address under any of the
registered prefixes. These rules apply equally to IPv6 packets as
well as to IPv4 packets as per [RFC5555].
Before a packet is forwarded to the mobile node it MUST be matched
against the ordered list of flow bindings stored in the list of flow
binding entries for this mobile node (see Section 4.3). A match is
attempted with the traffic selector included in the first line
(highest order) of the table. If the packet matches the traffic
selector, the action defined by the action parameter of the table
SHOULD be performed.
- if the Action indicates 'Discard', the packet is silently
discarded
- if the Action indicates 'Forward", a copy of the packet is
forwarded to each of the care-of addresses associated with the
BIDs indicated in the same line of the table.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
If the action indicated in one of the entries in the list of flow
bindings is 'Discard' then, no BIDs need to be indicated in the same
entry since the packet is not forwarded. If, however, the action
indicated in an entry of the list of flow bindings is 'Forward", the
entry should indicate one or more valid BIDs. For 'Forward' if any
of the BIDs indicated does not correspond to a valid care-of address,
e.g., the BID was deregistered then that BID has no effect on the
traffic. In other words, packets matching the flow binding are
forwarded to the remaining BIDs, pointing to registered care-of
addresses. If none of the BIDs pointed to in a flow binding entry is
valid then the entry is considered to be inactive (as defined in
Section 4.3) and is skipped. In other words packets should not be
matched against that entry.
If a packet does not match any of the active flow binding entries for
the given MN, the packet SHOULD be forwarded to the care-of address
associated with the BID with the highest BID-PRI.
If a packet is fragmented, only the first fragment contains all IP
and transport layer headers, while subsequent fragments only contain
an IP header without transport layer headers. For this reason it is
possible that subsequent fragments do not match the same traffic
selector as the initial fragment of such a packet. Unless specific
measures are taken the likely outcome is that the initial fragment is
routed as the MN intended while subsequent fragments are routed
differently, and probably based on the default flow binding. HAs,
MAPs, and CNs SHOULD take care to forward all fragments of a given
packet the same way, and in accordance to the flow binding matching
the first fragment of said packet. This should be possible given the
fact that fragment headers include enough information to identify a
fragment as part of a specific packet, but the details of how this is
ensured are implementation specific and are not defined in this
specification.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
6. Security considerations
This draft introduces a new option that adds more granularity to the
binding update message. The new option allows the mobile node to
associate some flows to one interface and other flows to another
interface. Since the flow identification mobility option is part of
the mobility header, it uses the same security as the Binding Update,
whether it is sent to a mobility agent, or to a correspondent node.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
7. IANA Considerations
This specification requires the following IANA assignments on
existing namespaces as well as the creation of some new namespaces.
1) New Mobility Options [RFC3775]: This registry is available from
http://www.iana.org under "Mobile IPv6 parameters". The following
type numbers need to be assigned for:
Flow Identification Mobility Option, define in Section 4.2
Flow Summary Mobility Option, defined in Section 4.2.2
2) New "Flow Identification Mobility Option Action codes"
namespace needs to be created. The following 'Action' codes are
defined in this specification, in Section 4.2:
0 Reserved
1 Discard
2 Forward
3-250 unassigned and available for allocation based on STD
action
251-255 reserved for experimental use
3) New "Flow Identification Mobility Option Status codes"
namespace needs to be created. The following 'Status' codes are
defined in this specification, in Section 4.2:
0 Flow binding successful
1-127 unassigned and available for success codes to be
allocated via STD action
128 Administratively prohibited
129 Flow binding rejected, reason unspecified
130 Flow identification mobility option malformed
131 BID not found
132 FID not found
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
133 Traffic selector format not supported
134 Discard function not supported
135 Forward function not supported
126-250 unassigned and available for reject codes to be
allocated via STD action
251-255 reserved for experimental use
4) New "Flow Identification Sub-Options" namespace for the Flow
Identification Mobility Option. The sub-option space is defined
in Figure 3. The following Sub-option Type values are defined in
this specification:
0 Pad
1 PadN
2 BID Reference
3 Traffic Selector
4-250 unassigned and available for allocation based on STD
action
251-255 reserved for experimental use
5) New "Traffic Selector Format" namespace for the Traffic
Selector sub-option. The traffic selector format space is defined
by the TS Format field in Figure 5. The following values are
defined in this specification:
0 Reserved
1-250 unassigned and available for allocation based on STD
action
251-255 reserved for experimental use
Similar to the procedures specified for Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] number
spaces, future allocations from the new number spaces requires Expert
Review as defined i [RFC5226].
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
8. Contributors
We would like to explicitly acknowledge the following person who co-
authored one of the documents used as source material for this
document.
Nikolaus A. Fikouras, niko@comnets.uni-bremen.de
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
9. Acknowledgements
We would also like to acknowledge the following people in
alphabetical order for their contributions to this specification: C.
Castelluccia, D. Craig, K. ElMalki, K. Georgios, , C. Goerg, C. Kaas-
Petersen, J. Laganier, T. Noel, F.-N. Pavlidou, V. Park, P. Stupar.
Also, Gabor Fekete for the analysis that led to the inclusion of the
BIDRef sub-option, and Henrik Levkowetz for suggesting support for
other ways of describing flows.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
[RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, T.,
and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration",
RFC 5648, October 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, September 1999.
[RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.
[RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Flow binding February 2010
Authors' Addresses
Hesham Soliman
Elevate Technologies
Email: hesham@elevatemobile.com
George Tsirtsis
Qualcomm
Email: tsirtsis@gmail.com
Nicolas Montavont
Institut Telecom / Telecom Bretagne
2, rue de la chataigneraie
Cesson Sevigne 35576
France
Phone: (+33) 2 99 12 70 23
Email: nicolas.montavont@telecom-bretagne.eu
URI: http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~nmontavo//
Gerardo Giaretta
Qualcomm
Email: gerardog@qualcomm.com
Koojana Kuladinithi
University of Bremen
ComNets-ikom,University of Bremen.
Otto-Hahn-Allee NW 1
Bremen, Bremen 28359
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-8264
Fax: +49-421-218-3601
Email: koo@comnets.uni-bremen.de
URI: http://www.comnets.uni-bremen.de/~koo/
Soliman, et al. Expires August 13, 2010 [Page 37]
