Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 5094

Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option

Pages: 7
Proposed Standard

Top   ToC   RFC5094 - Page 1
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
Top   ToC   RFC5094 - Page 2

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.
Top   ToC   RFC5094 - Page 3

2. Terminology

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 [1].

3. Vendor-Specific Mobility Option

The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2. If the Mobility Header message includes a Binding Authorization Data option [2], then the Vendor Specific mobility option should appear before the Binding Authorization Data option. Multiple Vendor-Specific mobility options MAY be present in a Mobility Header message. 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 ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Type | Data....... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type An 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor-Specific mobility option. Length An 8-bit field indicating the length of the option in octets excluding the Type and the Length fields. All other fields are included. Vendor ID The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA- maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry [5].
Top   ToC   RFC5094 - Page 4
   Sub-type

      An 8-bit field indicating the type of vendor-specific information
      carried in the option.  The administration of the Sub-type is done
      by the Vendor.


   Data

      Vendor-specific data that is carried in this message.

4. Security Considerations

The Vendor-Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner similar to Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements if it carries information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent node. In particular, the messages containing the Vendor Specific mobility option MUST be integrity protected.

5. IANA Considerations

The Vendor-Specific mobility option, defined in Section 3, has been assigned the type value (19), allocated from the same space as the Mobility Options registry created by RFC 3775 [2].

6. Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with whom the contents of this document were discussed first.
Top   ToC   RFC5094 - Page 5

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

7.2. Informative References

[3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005. [4] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Work in Progress, March 2007. [5] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Private Enterprise Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.
Top   ToC   RFC5094 - Page 6

Authors' Addresses

Vijay Devarapalli Azaire Networks 3121 Jay Street Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA EMail: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com Alpesh Patel Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: alpesh@cisco.com Kent Leung Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: kleung@cisco.com
Top   ToC   RFC5094 - Page 7
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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).