Network Mobility P. Thubert
Internet-Draft Cisco
Expires: February 22, 2008 TJ. Kniveton
Nokia
August 21, 2007
Mobile Network Prefix Delegation
draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation-02.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 February 22, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This paper extends the Nemo Basic Support [7] for a Mobile Router to
synchronize its Mobile Network Prefixes with its Home Agents and
obtain new ones dynamically. The proposed prefix delegation
mechanism is agnostic to the way the back end is implemented; it
enables bootstrapping, resynchronization at binding creation or after
a loss of states (eg MR reboot), MNP Renumbering, and configuration
checking for loop avoidance.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation for a NEMO prefix delegation . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Configuration management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. The NEMO bootstrap problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Local Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Which capabilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Prefix Request capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Full prefix list capability for HA . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.3. Full prefix list capability for MR . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Rationale for new Binding options . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Rationale for a new bit in the BU . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Why not Alternate standard based solutions? . . . . . . . 7
5. Terminology and concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. New mobility Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. New Prefix Status bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Prefix lease duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4. Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. backward compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.6. PD flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Binding Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Binding Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Mobile Network Prefix option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. Mobile Network Prefix request option . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5. Mobile Network Prefix Confirm option . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.1. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.2. Informative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
1. Introduction
The reader of that document is expected to be familiar with both the
Mobile IPv6 [6] and NEMO Basic Support [7] documents. As such, it is
well-understood that neither protocol provides the means for
provisioning the Mobile Nodes and Routers with essential parameters
such as Home Address and Home Network.
The process by which a router obtains a prefix dynamically is called
prefix delegation. In the NEMO context, the prefix is managed by an
authority that owns the Home Network and subnets it into MNPs that it
assigns to the MRs. An MNP can be preassigned to the associated MR
(e.g. manually or automatically with a provisionning system), or
assigned dynamically by a server such as a DHCP Prefix Delegation
server.
As prescribed by [7], the HA checks whether a MR is authorized for
the MNPs it claims as part of the NEMO Binding Update with the
explicit prefix option. Also, MNPs have to belong to an aggregation
that is permanently advertised by the HA to the routing
infrastruture. Consequently, there is a strong relationship between
the HA that the MR registers to and the prefixes it claims with the
registration, and it makes sense for the HA to participate actively
to the delegation process as well.
[7] standardizes an interface between a Mobile Router and its Home
Agent, as well as an interface between Home Agents. The protocol is
agnostic as to how the back end is implemented in terms of AAA,
provisioning, or routing between the HAs and their IGP, and enables
various forms of deployment, as described in [12].
In a same fashion, this document extends [7] for a Mobile Router to
obtain its Mobile Network Prefix dynamically from its Home Agent,
with no assumption about the specific back-end implementation for
prefix management and service authorization.
2. Motivation for a NEMO prefix delegation
A number of reasons plead for adding this capability to the NEMO
Basic Support [7].
Mainly, there is an unanswered question as to how a MR could be
dynamically assigned its prefix. In a situation where a site has
many MRs, it may be impractical to assign the prefixes statically in
the non-volatile memory of the MR. Consequently, a mechanism for the
HA to assign the prefix, similar to how a MN can bootstrap its Home
Address, would be desirable.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
2.1. Configuration management
The Implicit Mode of the NEMO Basic Support 'externalizes' the
configuration of the MNPs in a MR and its HA. In the example of a
static configuration, both side are initially provisioned with the
association between the MRs and their MNPs, and maintain matching
states between them.
The failure to configure and maintain these matching states overtime
ends up in routing loops and unreachable prefixes. Tools for
synchronizing MNPs in runtime would be a valuable addition to [7].
2.2. Provisioning
In practice, provisioning both sides manually is error-prone and
should be avoided. It can not be taken for granted, either, that in
all cases, a provisioning system can be deployed with the capability
to configure both the Mobile Router and the back-end in a
transactional manner. Consequently, it appears necessary to provide
a way to configure one side only, and have the other side learn from
it in a trusted fashion and with no additional manual intervention.
The Explicit Prefix mode enables a flow where the configuration of
that association is not centralized at the HA but distributed to all
the MRs. In the other hand, the HA is required to validate that the
MR has been authorized for the MNPs it claims and then again, some
level of information duplication might occur.
In the general case, it may be easier to manage the prefix
attribution in a centralized manner and have the MRs learn their
prefixes dynamically.
2.3. Renumbering
The concept of lifetime is one core idea with IPv6. Nothing is
eternal. Overtime, it might be desirable to modify the configuration
of the MNPs. This task, called renumbering, is especially difficult
for Mobile Routers when they are geographically distributed and can
not be readily made available to the administrators.
It is thus desirable to extend the NEMO Basic Support [7] with a
renumbering mechanism. In particular, it makes sense to provide that
extension within the prefix delegation mechanism, since the
operations that take place are similar.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
2.4. The NEMO bootstrap problem
The NEMO Basic Support [7] expects a Mobile Router to be provisioned
with some information in order to start up - Home Network or Home
Agent address, Home Address, Mobile Network Prefixes, security
tokens, etc...
In some situations, it may be impractical to actually provision all
this information into the router at deployment time, and some of it
has to be obtained dynamically when a system boots up, possibly
through manually keying by the final user.
It is absolutely required to reduce such manual keying of information
to the bare minimum, for instance a Network Access Identifier [8]
transported in the Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 [9].
And while NEMO can benefit from the MIP6 effort on the bootstrap
problem (as described in the MIP6 bootstrap problem statement
document [11]) for most parameters, the dynamic provisionning of
Mobile Network Prefix(es) is not considered by MIPv6.
2.5. Local Mobility Management
In turn, the bootstrap problem is linked to the Local Mobility
Management problem; some LMM solutions such as HMIP deploy regional
Home Agents from which bootstrap information has to be obtained when
moving into their area of coverage; as opposed to the initial
bootstrap problem which occurs at the first startup of a device and
may not happen again for an extensive period of time, LMM is tied to
movement, and could be quite frequent.
3. Requirements
There is thus a need for a Mobile Router to obtain dynamically one or
more MNPs, linked to the HA that the MR binds with.
Since the process may be used as part of a mobility scenario, there
is also a need to optimize the delegation flow by limiting the number
of protocol exchanges that take place for delegation and
registration.
Since the initial configuration may be erroneous or may need to
evolve overtime, there is a need to manage the MNPs on a Mobile
Router. This includes initial setting up, and synchronizing
overtime.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
4. Rationale
This section details the rationale behind some of the design
decisions that lead to this solution.
4.1. Which capabilities?
4.1.1. Prefix Request capability
The minimum capability that could be envisionned for a NEMO Prefix
Delegation mechanism is for a MR to request for a new prefix in a
Binding Update and for the HA to provide the prefix as part of the
Binding Acknowledgement. Then the Mobile Router installs the newly
obtained prefix on the interface that needs it, and moves forward in
implicit or explicit mode.
4.1.2. Full prefix list capability for HA
The capability to request a new prefix is sufficient in a basic
delegation flow where a MR that is already bound and -hopefully-
synchronized with its HA in terms of prefix ownership; it is also
required in some bootstrapping and renumbering flows; but it is
hardly sufficient in order to synchronize the MR and the HA states
regarding MNPs:
Bootstrapping: At bootstrapping time, the MR needs the list of all
the prefixes that are attributed in order to populate its
interfaces. Asking them one by one and having to make a
distinction between already allocated prefixes versus dynamic
allocation would make the flow much more complex.
Expired prefixes: That list is also needed for a MR in order to
synchronize its current configuration with that of the HA. In
particular, it is used for a MR to discover when the HA does not
have the associated states in place for one of its MNPs. This may
happen for some configuration error or because the prefix has
expired, and the only way to know is if the prefix is missing in a
full list of all prefixes by the HA.
Newly allocated prefixes: Finally, the list is needed for a MR to
learn new prefixes that would be attributed in runtime, and to
install those prefixes on its interfaces. Once the new prefixes
are installed, it is required that the MR confirms its use of the
prefixes so that the HA can set up routing in a loopfree fashion.
So the capability for a HA to list all the prefixes for a MR is
needed for the MR to realize that the HA is missing some states and
eventually to try to get the missing prefixes in explicit mode. This
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
may happen on demand by the MR (e.g. at bootstrap time or binding
creation time), or whenever the HA needs to communicate about a
change, such as a shortened or expired MNP lifetime.
4.1.3. Full prefix list capability for MR
So the capability for a HA to list all the prefixes is not sufficient
is the HA is not the repository of that knowledge. It might be
simpler for the MR to dump its own list of prefixes and have the HA
check the list, even for implicit prefixes.
4.2. Rationale for new Binding options
Associated to the capability to request a new prefix, it seems
relevant to specify whether the prefix is for implicit or explicit
mode, or if its lifetime is limited with that of the binding cache or
not. Other fields such as the prefix length are needed as well. In
order to convey that information, an optional field is needed in the
BU.
It is not desirable to extend the existing NEMO MNP option, which
carries a prefix that is not needed, though. As a result, we propose
a new option type, the MNP request option.
Associated to the capability for a HA to list all the prefixes for a
MR, one critical information is needed, that would not fit in the
NEMO MNP option. Again, we propose a new option for the Binding
Acknowledgement, the MNP confirm option.
4.3. Rationale for a new bit in the BU
A single bit in the BU is enough for a MR to request a full list of
prefixes from the HA, if we do not need a filter of any sort????
It is important that the HA set that bit in its full list of prefixes
in order to differentiate between an empty list (there's no prefix
for that MR) and no list (HA is not providing a list in that BA).
4.4. Why not Alternate standard based solutions?
Proposing a new, specific solution might seem irrelevant when a
standard, generic mechanism already exist, in this case the DHCPv6
Prefix Delegation. In fact, it is possible for the Home Agent to act
as a DHCPv6PD Delegating Router. This solution presents the
advantage of reusing existing standard flows from RFC3633 [4].
Yet, in a deployment where the MNPs are preassigned to the MR, a AAA
server, interfacing with the HA, and eventually coupled with a
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
provisioning system in its back end, can provide the required service
for assigning and authorizing the prefixes to the MRs; in such a
case, the value of implementing a DHCPv6PD server is highly arguable.
It is more generic to let the HA handle the backend interfaces on
behalf of the MR and expose a consistent NEMO interface for all
deployments.
In more details, a DHCPv6PD based solution presents a number of
inconveniences:
Delegating Router: A collocated Delegating Router function may not
be available for all implementation of NEMO Home Agent. In
particular, some implementations are server based.
Operational overhead: Depending on the mechanism that is used to
attribute the MNPs to the MRs, the Delegating function, even if
available, might be a costly overhead. Rather, an embedded, back-
end agnostic flow might be a desirable option.
Movement overhead: Some flows, for instance local mobility
management, might require a prefix delegation as part of the
handling of the movement. Segregating the delegation from the
binding adds a round trip delay to the recovery from the movement.
Binding Lifetime: It might be useful to associate implicitly the
lifetime of a delegated prefix with that of the binding. This
pleads for a design that places the Home Agent function in the
flow by construction.
Authentication Mechanism: While NEMO basic Support protects its own
flows, there is no mandate to secure the tunneled packets.
Back-end interaction: If a prefix is attributed to a MR for a
duration that exceeds that of its binding, this information needs
to be shared with all HAs, at least for authorization purposes.
This requires a specific backend integration that does not exist
in the Prefix Delegation Function, for instance via a AAA server.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
5. Terminology and concepts
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 [1].
Most of the mobility related terms used in this document are defined
in the Mobility Related Terminology document [5] and in the mobile
IPv6 specification [6].
Additionally, some terms were created or extended for NEMO. These
specific terms are defined in the Mobile Network Terminology document
[10]
This draft introduces the following definitions:
Mobile Network Prefix Request (MNPReq) Option: A new optional field
in the MIP6 Mobility Header for use with the binding Update
message, as described further in this document. This field is set
by a MR to request the delegation of a new prefix as a Mobile
Network Prefix.
Mobile Network Prefix Confirm (MNPConf) Option: A new optional field
in the MIP6 Mobility Header for use with the binding
Acknowledgement message, as described further in this document.
transient prefix: A prefix that is attributed to a Mobile Router in
association with a binding cache entry. If the BCE is removed,
the prefix is freed.
Persistent prefix: A prefix that is attributed to a Mobile Router
for a period of time that does not depend on the existence of a
binding cache entry.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
6. Overview
6.1. New mobility Headers
This paper introduces a new option to the MIP6 Mobility Header, for
use with the binding Update message, the Mobile Network Prefix
Request Option. A MR may include one or more MNPReq option(s) in a
Binding Update message at any time, in order to obtain additional
prefixes.
This paper introduces another new option to the MIP6 Mobility Header,
for use with the binding Acknowledgement message, the Mobile Network
Prefix Confirm Option. An HA will include one or more MNPConf
option(s) in a Binding Acknowledgement message, either in response to
a Mobile Network Prefix Request Option, or for its own purposes, for
instance in order inform a MR of a change about the lifetime of an
MNP.
6.2. New Prefix Status bit
This paper finally introduces a new bit to the MIP6 Binding Update
and Binding Acknowledgement, the Prefix Status bit. A MR may include
the Prefix Status bit in a binding Update message at any time, either
in order to get its initial configuration, or to check whether its
current configuration matches that of the Home Agent - which might be
particularily useful in implicit mode. When the Prefix Status bit is
set in the BU, the Acknowledge bit MUST be set as well.
The HA MAY set the Prefix Status bit in the Binding Acknowledgement
even if it was not set by the MR in the Binding Update; the other way
around, if the Prefix Status bit was set in the BU, then the HA MUST
echo it in the BA. When setting the Prefix Status bit, the HA also
lists all the prefixes associated to that Mobile Router using Mobile
Network Prefix Confirm options.
6.3. Prefix lease duration
A prefix may be obtained for the duration of the binding; in this
case, the prefix is called 'transient'. On the other hand, a prefix
can be assigned to a MR for a duration that is independent of a BCE
lifecycle, and that is controlled externally by the HA administrator;
in that case, the prefix is called 'persistent'.
A flag in the MNPReq option indicates the expectation of the MR in
terms of persistence for the requested prefix. If the HA can not
fulfill that expectation, it must reject the binding with a negative
status.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
The lease of a transient prefix expires with the MR Binding Cache
Entry; as a result, transient prefixes can be managed internally by a
HA, for instance using a local pool that forms an aggregation owned
by the HA.
One the other hand, some of the information about a persistent prefix
has to be shared between the HAs in a Home Network and the back end
systems that enable the authorization. This is required to allow a
Mobile Router to rebind, with the same persistent prefixes, to a
different Home Agent, after a period of inactivity.
It is possible to assign a persistent prefix dynamically at the time
of the delegation; but the persistent mode also enables the
preassignment of an MNP to an MR, for instance by provisionning a AAA
server with the necessary information for each Mobile Router.
6.4. Renumbering
It is possible to redeploy the persistent prefix space, for instance
if Home is being renumbered, or if a dynamically attributed prefix
has not been bound for a long period of time. In that case, the HA
rejects a new binding as the routing states can not be set up, and
the MR has to request one or more new persistent prefix(es).
6.5. backward compatibility
An HA that would not support this extension will ignore the
unrecognized option. Else, if the HA supports this draft, and if a
binding update with the MNPReq option can be accepted per the NEMO
basic support checkings:
6.6. PD flow
When a MR needs an additional prefix to populate an interface, it
adds an MNPreq option to its Binding update message.
If the HA can obtain the required prefix for that MR, it operates
following the NEMO basic support, either in Implicit Mode, or in
explicit mode using the prefixes as if they were received with the
BU. This includes setting up the routing states and responding with
a positive or a negative status.
If the routing states are established correctly and the HA responds
with a positive status, then the HA adds the prefix list to the
binding ack message.
From that point on, both the MR and the HA operate as prescribed by
the NEMO basic standard, either in implicit or in explicit mode.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
7. Message Formats
7.1. Binding Update
A new flag (S) is included in the Binding Update to indicate to the
Home Agent that the MR wishes to get the full list of all prefixes
that are already assigned to it. The rest of the Binding Update
format remains the same as defined in [7].
When the (S) bit is set, the (R) and and (A) bits MUST be set as
well.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence # |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|H|L|K|M|R|S| Reserved | Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Mobility options .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Binding Update
Prefix Status (S) The Prefix Status (S) bit is set by a MR to
request the full list of all prefixes that are already assigned to
it
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
7.2. Binding Acknowledgement
A new flag (S) is included in the Binding Acknowledgement to indicate
to the Mobile Router that the Home Agent provides the full list of
all prefixes that are already assigned to the MR. The rest of the
Binding Acknowledgement format remains the same as defined in [7].
When the (S) bit is set, the (R) bit MUST be set as well.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status |K|R|S|Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence # | Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Mobility options .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Binding Acknowledgement
Prefix Status (S) The Prefix Status (S) bit is set by a HA to
indicate that it provides the full list of all prefixes that are
already assigned to the MR.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
7.3. Mobile Network Prefix option
New flags are included in the Mobile Network Prefix option defined in
[7]. This allows the option to cover all the prefixes owned by the
MR, including those that are managed using the implicit prefix mode.
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 |P|I|D|Reserved1| Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Mobile Network Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Mobile Network Prefix option
The new flags introduced by this specification are:
Persistent (P) The (P) bit is set if the prefix is expexted to be
persistently assigned to the MR.
Implicit (I) The (I) bit is set if the prefix is expexted to be
assigned to and routed via the MR even if the prefix is not listed
in explicit mode BU.
Delegated (D) The (D) bit is set if the prefix was obtained using a
the Delagation Mechanism as described in this specification. It
is used to acknowledge that a previously delegated prefix is
actually installed and routable via the Mobile Router.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
7.4. Mobile Network Prefix request option
This new option is included in the Binding Update to indicate to the
Home Agent that the MR wishes to get a new prefix assigned to it for
use as a MNP.
When this option is present, the (S) MAY be set as well in the BU in
order to get the full list of all prefixes.
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 | Prefix Length |P|I| Reserved1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CorID | Reserved2 | Prefix type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Mobile Network Prefix request option
Type TBA
Length 8 bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the
option excluding the type and length fields. Set to 6.
Prefix Length 8 bit unsigned integer indicating the prefix length of
the IPv6 prefix contained in the option.
Persistent (P) The (P) bit is set if the prefix that is requested to
expected to be persistently assigned to the MR.
Implicit (I) The (I) bit is set if the prefix that is requested to
expected to be assigned to, and routed via the MR, even if the
prefix is not listed in explicit mode BU.
CorId A Correlator that is set by the MR in order to associate a MNP
request with the prefix given in the confirm. There can be at
most one active prefix associated with each Correlator. This
mechanism ensure the unicity of the allocation of a prefix, should
aither the BU or the BA be lost in the way.
Prefix Type Indicates the type of prefix that is requested:
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
0 None Specified
2 Unique Local
3 Global
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
7.5. Mobile Network Prefix Confirm option
This new option is included in the Binding Update to indicate to the
Home Agent that the MR wishes to get a new prefix assigned to it for
use as a MNP.
When this option is present, the (S) MAY be set as well in the BU in
order to get the full list of all prefixes.
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 | Prefix Length |P|I|D|Reserved1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CorID | Reserved2 | Prefix type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Valid Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Mobile Network Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Mobile Network Prefix Confirm option
Type TBA
Length 8 bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the
option excluding the type and length fields. Set to 26.
Prefix Length 8 bit unsigned integer indicating the prefix length of
the IPv6 prefix contained in the option.
Persistent (P) The (P) bit is set if the prefix is persistently
assigned to the MR.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
Implicit (I) The (I) bit is set if the prefix is assigned to and
routed via the MR even if the prefix is not listed in explicit
mode BU.
Delegated (D) The (D) bit is set if the prefix was obtained using a
the Delagation Mechanism as described in this specification.
CorId If the (D) bit is set, the Correlator that was set by the MR
in an MNPReq and this option contains the prefix that is being
delegated in response to that Request. If the (D) bit is not set,
the Correlator value is defined by the HA.
Prefix Type Indicates the type of prefix that is requested:
0 None Specified
2 Unique Local
3 Global
Valid Lifetime 32-bit unsigned integer. The length of time in
seconds (relative to the time the packet is sent) that the prefix
is valid for being installed on an MR ingress interface. A value
of all one bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity. The Valid
Lifetime is also used by RFC2461 [2] and RFC2462 [3], and must be
used in the RAs sent over the MR ingress interface for that
prefix.
Mobile Network Prefix A 16 byte field contains the Mobile Network
Prefix.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
8. Security Considerations
This protocol extension is protected by the mechanisms defined for
Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support. It is designed for use between a
Home Agent and a Mobile Router, so the threats introduced by the
Route Optimization process do not apply.
9. IANA Considerations
The specification requires the following allocations from IANA:
The Mobile Network Prefix Request option described in Section 7.4
requires a new option type. This option is included in the
Mobility header described in Mobile IPv6 [6] .
The Mobile Network Prefix Confirm option described in Section 7.5
requires a new option type. This option is included in the
Mobility header described in Mobile IPv6 [6].
10. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank:
Pekka Paakkonen and Juhani Latvakoski from VTT Electronics for their
initial work on the matter. Hesham Soliman for his suggestion to
couple PD with NAI.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
11. References
11.1. Normative Reference
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
[3] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[4] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[5] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
RFC 3753, June 2004.
[6] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[7] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
"Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
January 2005.
[8] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network
Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[9] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury,
"Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)",
RFC 4283, November 2005.
[10] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.
11.2. Informative Reference
[11] Patel, A. and G. Giaretta, "Problem Statement for bootstrapping
Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4640, September 2006.
[12] Thubert, P., Wakikawa, R., and V. Devarapalli, "Network
Mobility Home Network Models", RFC 4887, July 2007.
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
Authors' Addresses
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems
Village d'Entreprises Green Side
400, Avenue de Roumanille
Batiment T3
Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
FRANCE
Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
T.J. Kniveton
Nokia, Inc.
313 Fairchild Dr.
Building B-223
Mountain View 94043
USA
Phone: +1 650 625 2025
Email: tj@kniveton.com
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft NEMO-PD August 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Thubert & Kniveton Expires February 22, 2008 [Page 22]
