datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.12.0.p2, 2015-03-02
Report a bug

Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
RFC 5094

Document type: RFC - Proposed Standard (December 2007; No errata)
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2013-03-02
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

IETF State: (None)
Consensus: Unknown
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: RFC 5094 (Proposed Standard)
Responsible AD: Jari Arkko
Send notices to: mip6-chairs@ietf.org,draft-ietf-mip6-vsm@ietf.org

Network Working Group                                     V. Devarapalli
Request for Comments: 5094                               Azaire Networks
Category: Standards Track                                       A. Patel
                                                                K. Leung
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           December 2007

                   Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   There is a need for vendor-specific extensions to Mobility Header
   messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol
   for research or deployment purposes.  This document defines a new
   vendor-specific mobility option.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Vendor-Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007

1.  Introduction

   Vendor-specific messages have traditionally allowed vendors to
   implement extensions to some protocols and distinguish themselves
   from other vendors.  These messages are clearly marked by a Vendor ID
   that identifies the vendor.  A particular vendor's implementation
   identifies the vendor extension by recognizing the Vendor ID.
   Implementations that do not recognize the Vendor ID either discard or
   skip processing the message.

   Mobile IPv6 [2] is being deployed and there is a need for vendor-
   specific extensions to Mobility Header messages so that vendors are
   able to extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research or deployment
   purposes.

   This document defines a new mobility option, the Vendor-Specific
   Mobility Option, which can be carried in any Mobility Header message.
   The Vendor-Specific mobility option MUST be used only with a Mobility
   Header message.  Mobility options, by definition, can be skipped if
   an implementation does not recognize the mobility option type [2].

   The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO [3]
   and Proxy MIPv6 [4] since these protocols also use Mobility Header
   messages.

   Vendor-specific protocol extensions can cause serious
   interoperability issues and may in addition have adverse operational
   impact, if they are not designed and used carefully.  The vendor-
   specific option described in this document is meant to support simple
   use cases where it is sufficient to include some vendor data in the
   standardized Mobile IPv6 protocol exchanges.  The vendor-specific
   option is not suitable for more complex vendor extensions that modify
   Mobile IPv6 itself.  Although these options allow vendors to
   piggyback additional data onto Mobile IPv6 message exchanges, RFC
   3775 [2] requires that unrecognized options be ignored and that the
   end systems be able to process the remaining parts of the message
   correctly.  Extensions that use the vendor-specific mobility option
   should require an indication that the option was processed, in the
   response, using the vendor-specific mobility option.

   Vendors are generally encouraged to bring their protocol extensions
   to the IETF for review and standardization.  Complex vendor
   extensions that modify Mobile IPv6 itself, will see large-scale
   deployment or involve industry consortia, or other multi-vendor
   organizations MUST be standardized in the IETF.  Past experience has
   shown that such extensions of IETF protocols are critically dependent
   on IETF review and standardization.

Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007

[include full document text]