Mobile IP Working Group                                    Gopal Dommety
INTERNET DRAFT                                             Kent Leung
October 1999                                               Cisco Systems

Expires April 2000

           Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions
                draft-ietf-mobileip-vendor-ext-01.txt

. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and 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.

. Abstract

   This draft proposes extensions that can be used as a vendor or
   organization-Specific Extensions.  These extensions will facilitate
   organizations to make specific extensions as they see fit for
   research or deployment purposes.

Dommety, Leung                                                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft    Mobile IP Vendor-Specific Extensions       October 1999

. Introduction

   Current specification of Mobile IP [1] does not allow for
   organizations and vendor to include organization/vendor-specific
   extensions in the Mobile IP messages. With the wide scale deployment
   of Mobile IP it is useful to have a vendor or organization-Specific
   Extension.  This draft proposes an extension that can be used for
   making organization specific extensions.

. Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions

   Two Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions are described, Critical
   (CVSE) and Normal (NVSE) Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions.
   The basic differences are between the Critical and Normal Extensions
   is that when the Critical extension is encountered but not recognized,
the
   message containing the extension MUST be silently discarded. Whereas
   when a Normal Vendor/Organization Specific Extension is encountered
   and not recognized, the extension is ignored, but the rest of the
   Extensions and message data MUST still be processed. Another
   difference between the two is that Critical Vendor/Organization
   Extension has a length field of two bytes.

4.1. Critical Vendor/Organization Specific Extension (CVSE)

   The format of this extension is as shown below.

    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/Org-ID
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                  Vendor/Org-ID (cont)           | Opaque Data...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 1: Vendor/Organization Specific Extension

   Type       TBD-1 (value should be in the range of 0-127)

   Length     Length in bytes of this extension, not including the
              Type and Length bytes.

   Vendor-ID
              The high-order octet is 0 and the low-order 3 octets

Dommety, Leung                                                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft    Mobile IP Vendor-Specific Extensions       October 1999

              are the SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code
              of the Vendor in network byte order, as defined in the
              Assigned Numbers RFC [2].

   Opaque Data

              Vendor/organization specific data.  These data fields
              may be published in future RFCs.  The opaque data is
              zero or more octets.

   The actual format of the opaque data is site or application specific,
   and a robust implementation SHOULD support the field as undistinguished
   octets.

   The codification of the range of allowed usage of this field is
   outside the scope of this specification.  It is recommended that
   opaque data be encoded as a sequence of vendor type/vendor
   length/value fields.

   The length field of this extension is chosen to be two bytes long
   to allow for more than 251 bytes of Opaque Data. If an
   implementation  does not recognize the CVSE, according to RFC [1]
   the entire packet is to be silently dropped. But if an agent
   recognizes the CVSE, then it is aware of how to deal with
   the length size.

4.2. Normal Vendor/Organization Specific Extension (NVSE)

   The format of this extension is as shown below.

       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/Org-ID
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                 Vendor/Org-ID (cont) | Opaque Data...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 1: Vendor/Organization Specific Extension

      Type       TBD-2 (value should be in the range of 128-255)

      Length     Length in bytes of this extension, not including the
                 Type and Length bytes.

      Vendor-ID
                 The high-order octet is 0 and the low-order 3
                 octets are the SMI Network Management Private
                 Enterprise Code of the Vendor in network byte order,
                 as defined in the Assigned Numbers RFC [2].

      Opaque Data
                 Vendor/organization specific data.  These data
                 fields may be publicized in future RFCs. The opaque
                 data is zero or more octets.

4.3 Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions Processing Considerations

  When a Mobile IP agent receives registration request with an
  extension of type TBD-1 (CVSE) and recognizes it, but the extension
  contains an unknown/unsupported vendor ID or does not know how to
  interpret the opaque data or a part of opaque data, a registration
  reject  MUST be sent with the error code to indicate that the
  registration was rejected due to the presence of an unknown CVSE.

  When a Mobile IP entity receives registration reply with an
  extension of type TBD-1 (CVSE) and recognizes it, but the extensions
  contains  an unknown/unsupported vendor ID or does not know how to
  interpret the  opaque data or a part of opaque data, the packet is
  silently discarded.

  When a Mobile IP entity receives registration request with an
  extension of type TBD-2 (NVSE) and recognizes it,  but the extensions
  contains  an unknown/unsupported vendor ID or does not  know how  to
  interpret the  opaque data or a part of opaque data, that particular
  extension is skipped.

  NOTE that according to RFC [1], when an extension numbered within the
  range 0 through 127 is encountered but not recognized, the message
  containing that extension MUST be silently discarded. This draft is
  compliant with the above specification and specifies the action if
  the TBD-1 type is encountered and recognized, but does not support the
  vendor ID or the the vendor type extension within.

4.4 Error Codes

The following  error codes will be used.

Registration denied by the Foreign agent:

        TDB-code1: Unsupported Vendor-ID or unable to interpret
        Opaque Data in the CVSE sent by the Mobile Node to the
        Foreign Agent.

Registration denied by the Home agent:

        TDB-code2: Unsupported Vendor-ID or unable to interpret
        Opaque Data in the CVSE sent by the Mobile Node to the Home Agent.

        TDB-Code3: Unsupported Vendor-ID or unable to interpret
        Opaque Data in the CVSE sent by the Foreign Agent to the Home Agent.

Dommety, Leung                                                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft    Mobile IP Vendor-Specific Extensions       October 1999

. Restrictions

   Multiple TLV's with the TBD-1 and TBD-2 types can be included in a
   message.  TLVs with TBD-1 and TBD-2 types can be placed
   anywhere after the fixed portion of the Mobile IP message.  These TLVs
   are expected to be protected by the corresponding authenticator as
   necessary.  Ordering of these TLV's should not be modified by
intermediate
   nodes.

. Security Considerations

   This document assumes that the Mobile IP messages are authenticated
   using a method defined by the Mobile IP protocol.  This proposal does
   not impose any additional requirements on Mobile IP messages from a
   security point of view. So this is not expected to be a security
   issue.

. IPv6 Considerations

   This extension can be used in IPv4 and IPv6 alike.

. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank TR45.4 WG, TR45.6 WG, Jouni
   Malinen, and Patrice Calhoun for their useful discussions.

. References

   [] C. Perkins, Editor.  IP Mobility Support.  RFC 2002, October
   1996.

   [] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700,
   USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.

Dommety, Leung                                                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft    Mobile IP Vendor-Specific Extensions       October 1999

. Author Information

   Gopal Dommety
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   e-mail: gdommety@cisco.com

   Kent Leung
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   e-mail: kleung@cisco.com

Dommety, Leung