Mobility for IPv6 (MIP6) J. Korhonen
Internet-Draft U. Nilsson
Intended status: Experimental TeliaSonera
Expires: April 20, 2008 V. Devarapalli
Azaire
October 18, 2007
Service Selection for Mobile IPv6
draft-korhonen-mip6-service-04.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 April 20, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
In some Mobile IPv6 deployments identifying the mobile node or the
mobility service subscriber is not enough to distinguish between
multiple services possibly provisioned to the said mobile node and
its mobility service subscription. A capability to specify different
services in addition to the mobile node identity can be leveraged to
provide flexibility for mobility service providers on provisioning
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 2007
multiple services to one mobility service subscription. This
document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for both
conventional Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6 that is intended to
assist home agents to make a specific service selection for the
mobility service subscription during the binding registration
procedure.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Service Selection Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Processing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 2007
1. Introduction
Mobile IPv6 [1] can identify mobile nodes in various ways, including
home addresses [1], Network Access Identifiers (NAIs) [4][5], and
credentials suitable for IKEv2 [6]. In some Mobile IPv6 deployments
identifying the mobile node or the mobility service subscriber via a
Proxy Mobile IPv6 client [7] (hereafter the mobile node and the Proxy
Mobile IPv6 client are used interchangeably) is not enough to
distinguish between multiple services possibly provisioned to the
said mobile node and its mobility service subscription.
The capability to specify different services in addition to the
mobile node identity can be leveraged to provide flexibility for
mobility service providers to provide multiple services within the
same mobility service subscription. For example:
o Provide an enterprise data access for witch the mobility service
provider hosts connectivity and mobility services on behalf of the
enterprise.
o Provide access to service domains that are otherwise not
accessible from public networks because of some mobility service
provider's business reasons.
o Provide simultaneous access to different service domains that are
separated based on policies of the mobility service provider.
o Enable easier policy and quality of service assignment for
mobility service providers based on the subscribed services.
o In absence of a specifically indicated service the home agent MUST
act as if the default service, plain Internet access had been
requested. There is no absolute requirement that this default
service be allowed to all subscribers, but it is highly
RECOMMENDED in order to avoid having normal subscribers employ
operator-specific configuration values in order to get basic
service.
This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for
Mobile IPv6 that is intended to assist home agents to make specific
service selections for the mobility service subscription during the
binding registration procedure. The service selection may affect
home agent routing decisions, Home Address or Home Network Prefix
assignment policies, firewall settings, and security policies. The
Service Selection option should be used in every Binding Update that
makes a new registration to the home agent.
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 2007
2. Requirements
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 [2].
3. Service Selection Mobility Option
The Service Selection mobility option MAY be included in any Binding
Update message. It SHOULD be included at least in the Binding Update
message that is sent for the initial binding registration when the
mobile node and the home agent do not have an existing binding. If
the Binding Update message includes any authorization related options
(such as the Binding Authorization Data option [1]) or authentication
related options (such as the Mobility Message Authentication option
[8]), then the Service Selection option MUST appear before any
mobility message authorization or authentication related options.
The service selection option SHOULD NOT be send to a correspondent
node. The mobile node cannot assume that the correspondent node has
any knowledge about a specific service selection made between the
mobile node and the home agent.
The Service Selection option has no alignment requirement as such.
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 = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Service Selection Mobility Option
o Type: 8-bit identifier set to TBD (to be defined by IANA) of the
type of the skipable mobility option.
o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length of the
Service Selection mobility option in octets, excluding the Option
Type and Option Length fields.
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 2007
o Identifier: A variable length UTF-8 [3] encoded service identifier
string used to identify the requested service.
'ims', 'voip' and 'voip.companyxyz.example.com' are valid examples
of Service Selection option Identifiers. At minimum the
Identifier MUST be unique among the home agents the mobile node is
authorized to register to.
4. Processing Considerations
4.1. Mobile Node Considerations
A mobile node or a Proxy Mobile IPv6 client MAY include the Service
Selection mobility option into a Binding Update message. The option
is used to identify the service to be associated with the binding
registration and SHOULD only be included into the initial Binding
Update message sent to a home agent. If the mobile node wishes to
change the selected service, it is RECOMMENDED that the node de-
register the existing binding with the home agent before proceeding
with a binding registration for a different service. The
provisioning of the service identifiers to the mobile node or to the
Proxy Mobile IPv6 client is out of scope of this specification.
The placement of the Service Selection option is as follows: when
present this option MUST appear after the MN-NAI option, if the MN-
NAI option is present, and before any authorization and
authentication related options. The Service Selection option can be
used with any mobile node identification method such as a home
address, a MN-NAI and credentials suitable for IKEv2.
If the mobile node receives a Binding Acknowledgement with a Status
Code set to SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED and the mobile node has an
existing binding with the Home Address or the Home Network Prefix
used in the failed Binding Update message, the mobile node MUST
delete the existing binding. If there is no existing binding the
mobile node proceeds as with any failed initial binding registration.
4.2. Home Agent Considerations
Upon receiving a Bind Update message with a Service Selection option
the home agent authenticates and authorizes the mobile node. If the
home agent supports the Service Selection it MUST also verify that
the mobile node is authorized for the service it included in the
Service Selection option. The services the mobile node is authorized
for SHOULD be part of the general mobile node subscription profile.
If the mobile node is not authorized for the service the home agent
MUST deny the registration and send a Binding Acknowledgement with a
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 2007
Status Code set to SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED (error code TBD).
The Service Selection option is used to assist the authorization and
identifies a specific service that is to be authorized. The Service
Selection option MAY also affect the Home Address or the Home Network
Prefix allocation when for example used with the MN-NAI option. For
example, for the same NAI there MAY be different Home Addresses or
Home Network Prefixes depending on the identified service.
Furthermore, the Service Selection option MAY also affect the routing
of the outbound IP packets in the home agent depending on the
selected service. The home agent MAY also apply different policy or
quality of service treatment to traffic flows based on the selected
service.
If the newly arrived Binding Update message with a Service Selection
option indicates a change in the selected service, then the home
agent MUST re-authorize the mobile node. Depending on the home agent
policies, the services policies, Home Address or Home Network Prefix
allocation policies and the subscription policies the home agent may
or may not be able to authorize the mobile node to the new service.
For example the existing service and the new service could require
different Home Network Prefixes. If the authorization fails then the
home agent MUST deny the registration, delete any binding with the
existing Home Address or Home Network Prefix and send a Binding
Acknowledgement with a Status Code set to
SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED (error code TBD).
4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations
Unless the correspondent node and the home agent share the same
knowledge about mobility services the Service Selection option is
more or less useless information to the correspondent node. The
correspondent node SHOULD silently ignore the Service Selection
option.
5. Security Considerations
The protection for the Service Selection mobility option depends on
the service that is being identified and eventually selected. If the
service selection information should not be revealed on the wire,
Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements should use Encapsulating
Security Payload (ESP) [9] in transport mode with a non-null
encryption transform to provide message confidentiality.
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 2007
6. IANA Considerations
A new Mobile IPv6 Mobility Option type is required for the following
new mobility option described in Section 3:
Service Selection Mobility Option is set to TBD
A new Mobile IPv6 registration denied by home agent Status Code is
required. The Status Code must be allocated from the range 128-255:
SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED is set to TBD
7. Acknowledgements
Jouni korhonen would like to thank TEKES MERCoNe project for
providing funding to work on this document. The authors would like
to thank Jari Arkko for his thorough review.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
8.2. Informative References
[4] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network
Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[5] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury,
"Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)",
RFC 4283, November 2005.
[6] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2
and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, April 2007.
[7] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and
B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-06
(work in progress), September 2007.
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 2007
[8] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury,
"Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4285,
January 2006.
[9] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303,
December 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Jouni Korhonen
TeliaSonera Corporation
P.O.Box 970
FIN-00051 Sonera
Finland
Email: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com
Ulf Nilsson
TeliaSonera Corporation
Marbackagatan 11
S-123 86 Farsta
Sweden
Email: ulf.s.nilsson@teliasonera.com
Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
4800 Great America Pkwy
Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA
Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 October 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).
Korhonen, et al. Expires April 20, 2008 [Page 9]
