Network Working Group K. Leung Request for Comments: 5177 G. Dommety Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems V. Narayanan Qualcomm, Inc. A. Petrescu Motorola April 2008 Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 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.
AbstractThis document describes a protocol for supporting Mobile Networks between a Mobile Router and a Home Agent by extending the Mobile IPv4 protocol. A Mobile Router is responsible for the mobility of one or more network segments or subnets moving together. The Mobile Router hides its mobility from the nodes on the Mobile Network. The nodes on the Mobile Network may be fixed in relationship to the Mobile Router and may not have any mobility function. Extensions to Mobile IPv4 are introduced to support Mobile Networks.
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Examples of Mobile Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Overview of Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Mobile Network Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Mobile Network Request Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Mobile Router Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Error Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. Mobile Router Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Home Agent Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.2. Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2.1. Registration Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2.2. Prefix Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.3. Mobile Network Prefix Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.4. Advertising Mobile Network Reachability . . . . . . . . . 16 6.5. Establishment of Bi-directional Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.6. Sending Registration Replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.7. Mobile Network Prefix Deregistration . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Data Forwarding Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Nested Mobile Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Routing Protocol between Mobile Router and Home Agent . . . . 18 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10.1. Security when Dynamic Routing Protocol Is Used . . . . . . 20 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
RFC4885] is suggested.
---- | HA | ---- -------- | / \ ---- -+--------| Internet |---------| CN | \ / ---- -------- / \ / \ / \ ---- ---- | AR | | AR | ---- ---- |cellular |cellular / |cellular | ---- ---- Mobile | | MR | |LFN | ---movement--> Network < ---- ---- | | | | -+-----------+- \ Bluetooth The camera (Local Fixed Node) uploads photographic content to a Correspondent Node (CN) server. When the Mobile Network moves away, the Mobile Router serving the Mobile Network changes its point of attachment from one cellular access (Access Router) to another, obtaining a new Care-of Address. The Home Agent (HA) encapsulates application traffic for the CN and LFN. Whereas the illustration above is a very simple instantiation of the applicability of Mobile IP-based Mobile Networks, more complex Mobile Networks are easily accommodated by the Mobile IPv4 extensions presented in this document (NEMOv4). For example, laptop computers used by passengers in a bus, train, ship, or plane should all be considered as forming Mobile Networks, as long as they move together (homogeneously).
figure: LFN MR HA CN | | | | | | Extended Registration | | | |---------------------->| | | | Request | | | | | | | | | | | | Extended Registration | | | |<----------------------| | | | Reply | | | | | | |<--------o=======================o-------->| | | Encapsulated | | | | Application Traffic | | | | | | The prefix(es) used within a Mobile Network (either implicitly configured on the Home Agent or explicitly identified by the Mobile Router in the Registration Request) is/are advertised by the Home Agent for route propagation in the home network. Traffic to and from nodes in the Mobile Network are tunneled by the Home Agent to the Mobile Router, and vice versa. Though packets from a Local Fixed Node placed in the Mobile Network can be forwarded by the Mobile Router directly without tunneling (if reverse tunneling were not used), these packets will be dropped if ingress filtering is turned on at the Access Router. Extensively relating to Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344], this specification addresses mainly the co-located Care-of Address mode. Foreign Agent Care-of Address mode (with 'legacy' Foreign Agents [RFC3344]) is
supported but without optimization, and with double encapsulation being used. For an optimization of this mode, the gentle reader is directed to an extension document [NEMOv4-FA]. Compared to Mobile IPv4, this document specifies an additional tunnel between a Mobile Router's Home Address and the Home Agent. This tunnel is encapsulated within the normal tunnel between the Care-of Address (CoA) and Home Agent. In Foreign Agent CoA mode, the tunnel between the Mobile Router and Home Agent is needed to allow the Foreign Agent to direct the decapsulated packet to the proper visiting Mobile Router. However, in co-located CoA mode, the additional tunnel is not essential and could be eliminated because the Mobile Router is the recipient of the encapsulated packets for the Mobile Network; a proposal for this feature is in the extending document mentioned above [NEMOv4-FA]. All traffic between the nodes in the Mobile Network and the Correspondent Nodes passes through the Home Agent. This document does not touch on aspects related to route optimization of this traffic. A similar protocol has been documented in RFC 3963 [RFC3963] for supporting IPv6 Mobile Networks with Mobile IPv6 extensions. Multihoming for Mobile Routers is outside the scope of this document. RFC2119]. Terminology for Mobile IPv4 mobility support is defined in RFC 3344 [RFC3344]. Terminology for network mobility support (NEMO), from an IPv6 perspective, is described in RFC 4885 [RFC4885]. In addition, this document defines the following terms for NEMOv4. Mobile Router RFC 3344 [RFC3344] defines a Mobile Router as a mobile node that can be a router that is responsible for the mobility of one or more entire networks moving together, perhaps on an airplane, a ship, a train, an automobile, a bicycle, or a kayak.
Mobile Network Prefix The network prefix of the subnet delegated to a Mobile Router as the Mobile Network. Prefix Table A list of Mobile Network Prefixes indexed by the Home Address of a Mobile Router. The Home Agent manages and uses the Prefix Table to determine which Mobile Network Prefixes belong to a particular Mobile Router. Local Fixed Node RFC 4885 [RFC4885] defines a Local Fixed Node (LFN) to be a fixed node belonging to the Mobile Network and unable to change its point of attachment. This definition should not be confused with "Long, Fat Network, LFN" of RFC 1323 [RFC1323], at least because the latter is pronounced "elephan(t)" whereas a NEMO LFN is distinctively pronounced "elefen". Section 4.5 of RFC 3344 [RFC3344]), there is no solution for explicit registration of the Mobile Networks served by the Mobile Router. A solution needs to provide the Home Agent a means to ensure that a Mobile Router claiming a certain Mobile Network Prefix is authorized to do so. A solution would also expose the Mobile Network Prefixes (and potentially other subnet-relevant information) in the exchanged messages, to aid in network debugging. The following requirements for Mobile Network support are enumerated: o A Mobile Router should be able to operate in explicit or implicit mode. A Mobile Router may explicitly inform the Home Agent which Mobile Network(s) need to be propagated via a routing protocol. A Mobile Router may also function in implicit mode, where the Home Agent may learn the Mobile Networks through other means, such as from the AAA server, via pre-configuration, or via a dynamic routing protocol. o The Mobile Network should be supported using Foreign Agents that are compliant to RFC 3344 [RFC3344] without any changes ('legacy' Foreign Agents).
o The Mobile Network should allow Fixed Nodes, Mobile Nodes, or Mobile Routers to be on it. o The Local Fixed Nodes on a Mobile Network should be able to execute their sessions without running Mobile IP stacks. The Mobile Router managing the LFNs' Mobile Network is 'hiding' mobility events like the changes of the Care-of Address from the Local Fixed Nodes in that Mobile Network. RFC3344]. When several Mobile Networks need to be registered, each is included in a separate Mobile Network Request extension, with its own Type, Length, Sub-Type, Prefix Length, and Prefix. A Mobile Network Request extension is encoded in Type- Length-Value (TLV) format and respects the following ordering: 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 | Sub-Type | Prefix Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prefix | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 148 Mobile Network Extension Length: Decimal 6. Sub-Type: 0 (Mobile Network Request)
Prefix Length: 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of leftmost bits covering the network part of the address contained in the Prefix field. Prefix: 32-bit unsigned integer in network byte-order containing an IPv4 address whose leftmost Prefix Length bits make up the Mobile Network Prefix. RFC3344]. For Implicit Mode, the Mobile Network Acknowledgement informs the Mobile Router the prefixes for which the Home Agent sets up forwarding with respect to this Mobile Router. Policies such as permitting only traffic from these Mobile Networks to be tunneled to the Home Agent may be applied by the Mobile Router. For Explicit Mode, when several Mobile Networks need to be acknowledged explicitly, each is included in a separate Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension, with its own Type, Sub-Type, Length, Prefix, and Prefix Length fields. At least one Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension MUST be in a successful Registration Reply to indicate to the Mobile Router that the Mobile Network Request extension was processed, and therefore was not skipped by the Home Agent. A Registration Reply may contain any non-zero number of Explicit Mode and Implicit Mode Acknowledgements sub-types. Both sub-types can be present in a single Registration Reply. A Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension is encoded in Type-Length-Value (TLV) format. When the registration is denied with Code HA_MOBNET_ERROR (Code field in the Registration Reply), the Code field in the included Mobile Network Extension provides the reason for the failure. 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 | Sub-Type | Code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prefix Length | Reserved | Prefix... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...Prefix | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 148 Mobile Network Extension Length: Decimal 8. Sub-Type: 1 (Explicit Mode Acknowledgement) 2 (Implicit Mode Acknowledgement) Code: Value indicating success or failure: 0 Success 1 Invalid prefix (MOBNET_INVALID_PREFIX_LEN) 2 Mobile Router is not authorized for prefix (MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED) 3 Forwarding setup failed (MOBNET_FWDING_SETUP_FAILED) Prefix Length: 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of leftmost bits covering the network part of the address contained in the Prefix field. Reserved: Sent as zero; ignored on reception. Prefix: 32-bit unsigned integer in network byte-order containing an IPv4 address whose leftmost Prefix Length bits make up the Mobile Network Prefix.
RFC3344]. In addition to maintaining mobility bindings for its Home Address, the Mobile Router, together with the Home Agent, maintains forwarding information for the Mobile Network Prefix(es) assigned to the Mobile Router. A Mobile Router SHOULD set the 'T' bit to 1 in all Registration Request messages it sends to indicate the need for reverse tunnels for all traffic. Without reverse tunnels, all the traffic from the Mobile Network will be subject to ingress filtering in the visited networks. Upon reception of a successful Registration Reply, the Mobile Router processes the registration in accordance to RFC 3344 [RFC3344]. In addition, the following steps are taken: o Check for Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension(s) in Registration Reply. o Create tunnel to the Home Agent if the Mobile Router is registered in reverse tunneling mode. o Set up default route via this tunnel or egress interface when the Mobile Router is registered with or without reverse tunneling, respectively. In accordance with this specification, a Mobile Router may operate in one of the following two modes: explicit and implicit. In explicit mode, the Mobile Router includes Mobile Network Prefix information in all Registration Requests (as Mobile Network Request extensions), while in implicit mode it does not include this information in any Registration Request. In the latter case, the Home Agent obtains the Mobile Network Prefixes by other means than Mobile IP. One example of obtaining the Mobile Network Prefix is through static configuration on the Home Agent. A Mobile Router can obtain a co-located or Foreign Agent Care-of Address while operating in explicit or implicit modes. For deregistration, the Mobile Router sends a registration request with lifetime set to zero without any Mobile Network Request extensions.
Section 11. RFC2006]. The structure of the basic model of Mobile IP protocol describes three entities: Mobile Node, Home Agent, and Foreign Agent. In addition to these entities, this document proposes a functional entity to be the Mobile Router.
The necessary initial configuration at a NEMOv4-enabled Home Agent includes, but is not limited to, the contents of the Prefix Table. The Mobile Router MAY need to store the Mobile Network Prefixes as the initial configuration. The definition of MIB objects related to the Mobile Router and to a NEMOv4-enabled Home Agent is outside the scope of this document. RFC3344] for Mobile Node support. The Home Agent MUST support both implicit and explicit modes of operation for a Mobile Router. The Home Agent processes the registration in accordance to RFC 3344 [RFC3344], which includes route setup to the Mobile Router's Home Address via the tunnel to the Care-of Address. In addition, for a Mobile Router registering in explicit mode, the following steps are taken: 1. Check that the Mobile Network Prefix information is valid. 2. Ensure the Mobile Network Prefix(es) is/are authorized to be on the Mobile Router. 3. Create a tunnel to the Mobile Router if it does not already exist. 4. Set up route for the Mobile Network Prefix via this tunnel. 5. Propagate Mobile Network Prefix routes via routing protocol if necessary. 6. Send the Registration Reply with the Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension(s). If there are any subnet routes via the tunnel to the Mobile Router that are not specified in the Mobile Network extensions, these routes are removed. In the case where the Mobile Node is not permitted to act as a Mobile Router, the Home Agent sends a Registration Reply message whose Code field is HA_MOBNET_DISALLOWED (the proper Code field of the Registration Reply).
For a Mobile Router registering in implicit mode, the Home Agent performs steps 3-6 above, once the registration request is processed successfully. For deregistration, the Home Agent removes the tunnel to the Mobile Router and all routes using this tunnel. The Mobile Network extensions are ignored. RFC3344], contains binding information for every Mobile Node registered with it. RFC 3344 [RFC3344] defines the format of a Registration Table. In addition to all the parameters specified by RFC 3344 [RFC3344], the Home Agent MUST store the Mobile Network Prefixes associated with the Mobile Router in the corresponding registration entry, when the corresponding registration was performed in explicit mode. When the Home Agent is advertising reachability to Mobile Network Prefixes served by a Mobile Router, the information stored in the Registration Table can be used. RFC2794] of the Mobile Router that will be used in dynamic Home Address assignment. RFC3344] specifies that the Home Address of a mobile node registering with a Home Agent must belong to a prefix advertised on the home network. In accordance with this specification, however, the Home Address must be configured from a prefix that is served by the Home Agent, not necessarily the one on the home network.
If the Registration Request is valid, the Home Agent checks to see if there are any Mobile Network Prefix extensions included in the Registration Request. If so, the Mobile Network Prefix information is obtained from the included extensions, and the Home Address from the Home Address field of the Registration Request. For every Mobile Network Prefix extension included in the registration request, the Home Agent MUST perform a check against the Prefix Table. If the Prefix Table does not contain at least one entry pairing that Home Address to that Mobile Network Prefix, then the check fails; otherwise, it succeeds. Following this check against the Prefix Table, the Home Agent MUST construct a Registration Reply containing Mobile Network Acknowledgement extensions. For a Mobile Network Prefix for which the check was unsuccessful, the Code field in the corresponding Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension should be set to MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED. For a Mobile Network Prefix for which the check was successful, the Code field in the respective Mobile Network Acknowledgement extensions should be set to 0. The Home Agent MUST attempt to set up forwarding for each Mobile Network Prefix extension for which the Prefix Table check was successful. If the forwarding setup fails for a particular Mobile Network Prefix (for reasons such as not enough memory available or not enough devices available), the Code field in the respective Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension should be set to MOBNET_FWDING_SETUP_FAILED. If forwarding and setup was successful for at least one Mobile Network Prefix, then the Code field (the proper) of the Registration Reply message should be set to 0. Otherwise, when forwarding and setup was unsuccessful for each and every Mobile Network Prefixes, that Code (the proper) should be HA_MOBNET_ERROR. If the Registration Request is sent in implicit mode, i.e., without any Mobile Network Request extension, the Home Agent may use pre- configured Mobile Network prefix information for the Mobile Router to set up forwarding. If the Home Agent is updating an existing binding entry for the Mobile Router, it MUST check all the prefixes in the Registration Table against the prefixes included in the Registration Request. If one or more Mobile Network prefixes are missing from the included
information in the registration request, the Home Agent MUST delete those prefixes from the registration table. Also, the Home Agent MUST disable forwarding for those prefixes. If all checks are successful, the Home Agent either creates a new entry for the Mobile Router or updates an existing binding entry for it and returns a successful registration reply back to the Mobile Router or the Foreign Agent (if the Registration Request was received from a Foreign Agent). In accordance with RFC 3344 [RFC3344], the Home Agent does proxy Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) for the Mobile Router Home Address when the Mobile Router Home Address is derived from the home network. If the 'T' bit is set, the Home Agent creates a bi-directional tunnel for the corresponding Mobile Network prefixes or updates the existing bi-directional tunnel. This tunnel is maintained independent of the reverse tunnel for the Mobile Router home address itself.
packet has the source IP address set to the Care-of Address of the Mobile Router. The packet MUST be dropped if the source address is not set to the Care-of Address of the Mobile Router. For traffic from the nodes in the Mobile Network, the Mobile Router encapsulates the packet with a tunnel header (source IP address set to Mobile Router's Home Address, and destination IP address set to Home Agent) if reverse tunnel is enabled. Otherwise, the packet is routed directly to the Foreign Agent or access router. In co-located CoA mode, the Mobile Router MAY encapsulate one more time with a tunnel header (source IP address set to the CoA and destination IP address set to Home Agent).
Here too, the purpose of NEMOv4 extensions is not to inform the Mobile Router about topology changes at home. Examples of dynamic routing protocols include, but are not limited to, OSPF Version 2 [RFC2328], BGP [RFC4271], and RIP [RFC2453]. The recommendations are related to how the routing protocol and the Mobile IPv4 implementation work in tandem on the Mobile Router and on the Home Agent (1) without creating incoherent states in the forwarding information bases at home and on the Mobile Router, (2) without introducing topologically incorrect addressing information in the visited domain, and (3) without duplicating sent data or over- provisioning security. The information exchanged between the Mobile Router and the Home Agent is sent over the bi-directional tunnel established by the Mobile IPv4 exchange Registration Request - Registration Reply (see Section 6.5). If a network address and prefix of a subnet in the moving network is sent by the Mobile Router within a routing protocol message, then they SHOULD NOT be sent in the Mobile IPv4 Registration Request too. This avoids incoherencies in the forwarding information bases. The Mobile Router SHOULD use NEMOv4 implicit mode in this case (see Section 3). The Mobile Router SHOULD NOT send routing protocol information updates in the foreign network. The subnet addresses and prefixes valid in the moving network are topologically incorrect in the visited network. If the Mobile Router and the Home Agent use a dynamic routing protocol over the tunnel interface, and if that protocol offers security mechanisms to protect that protocol's messages, then the security recommendations in Section 10.1 apply. RFC3344]. The Home Agent MUST be able to verify that the Mobile Router is authorized to provide mobility service for the Mobile Networks in the Registration Request, before anchoring these Mobile Network Prefixes on behalf of the Mobile Router. Forwarding for prefixes MUST NOT be set up without successful authorization of the Mobile Router for those prefixes. The Mobile Router MUST be notified when there is a registration failure because it cannot be successfully authorized for prefixes it requested.
All Registration Requests and replies MUST be authenticated by the MN-HA Authentication Extension as specified in RFC 3344 [RFC3344]. When the registration request is sent in explicit mode, i.e., with one or more Mobile Network Prefix extensions, all the Mobile Network Prefix extensions MUST be included before the MN-HA Authentication extension. Also, these extensions MUST be included in the calculation of the MN-HA authenticator value. The Mobile Router should perform ingress filtering on all the packets received on the Mobile Network prior to reverse tunneling them to the Home Agent. The Mobile Router MUST drop any packets that do not have a source address belonging to the Mobile Network. The Mobile Router MUST also ensure that the source address of packets arriving on the Mobile Network is not the same as the Mobile Router's IP address on any interface. These checks will protect against nodes attempting to launch IP spoofing attacks through the bi-directional tunnel. The Home Agent, upon receiving packets through the bi-directional tunnel, MUST verify that the source addresses of the outer IP header of the packets are set to the Mobile Router's Care-of Address. Also, it MUST ensure that the source address of the inner IP header is a topologically correct address on the Mobile Network. This will prevent nodes from using the Home Agent to launch attacks inside the protected network. RFC 3344". The numbering space for Extensions that may appear in Mobile IP control messages (those sent to and from UDP port number 434) should be modified.
The new Values and Names for the Type for Extensions appearing in Mobile IP control messages are the following: +-------+--------------------------+ | Value | Name | +-------+--------------------------+ | 148 | Mobile Network Extension | +-------+--------------------------+ Table 1: New Values and Names for Extensions in Mobile IP Control Messages A new number space has been created for the Values and Names for the Sub-Type for Mobile Network Extensions. This number space is initially defined to hold the following entries, allocated by this document: +-------+-----------------------------------------+ | Value | Name | +-------+-----------------------------------------+ | 0 | Mobile Network Request Extension | | 1 | Explicit Mode Acknowledgement Extension | | 2 | Implicit Mode Acknowledgement Extension | +-------+-----------------------------------------+ Table 2: New Values and Names for the Sub-Type for Mobile Network Extensions The policy of future assignments to this number space is following Standards Action or IESG Approval (see [RFC2434]). The new Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply messages are the following (for a registration denied by the Home Agent): +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Value | Name | +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | 147 | Mobile Network Prefix operation error (HA_MOBNET_ERROR) | | 148 | Mobile Router operation is not permitted | | | (HA_MOBNET_DISALLOWED) | +-------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ Table 3: New Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply
A new number space has been created for the Code Values for the Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension. This number space is initially defined to hold the following entries, allocated by this document (result of registration, as sent by the Home Agent): +---+---------------------------------------------------------------+ | 0 | Success | | 1 | Invalid prefix length (MOBNET_INVALID_PREFIX_LEN) | | 2 | Mobile Router is not authorized for prefix | | | (MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED) | | 3 | Forwarding setup failed (MOBNET_FWDING_SETUP_FAILED) | +---+---------------------------------------------------------------+ Table 4: New Code Values for Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension The policy of future assignments to this number space is following Standards Action or IESG Approval (see [RFC2434]). RFC 2002 by Charles Perkins) described Mobile Networks and Mobile Routers support. Fred Templin indicated the potential confusion for the term "LFN". Amanda Baber of IANA agreed on the principles of allocating numbers for this specification and suggested improvements on the IANA section. Tim Polk of the IESG identified a deeply entrenched error on managing the Code fields. Lars Eggert of the IESG suggested the accommodation of the otherwise legal non-contiguous netmask fields, instead of simply prefix lengths. Dan Romascanu of the IESG indicated the necessity of manageability of Mobile Routers and NEMOv4-enabled Home Agents and their deployability in MIP4 environments.
David Borman of TSV-DIR reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. The implications of the growth of usable MTU adversely affecting applications deep in a Mobile Network were suggested. Gonzalo Camarillo provided a generalist review by an additional set of eyes for documents as they are being considered for publication (General Area Review Team). Jari Arkko of the IESG reviewed, suggested necessary improvements to, and diligently shepherded this document through IESG. [RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992. [RFC2006] Cong, D., Hamlen, M., and C. Perkins, "The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2", RFC 2006, October 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453, November 1998. [RFC2794] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000. [RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, August 2002. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[NEMOv4-FA] Tsirtsis, G., Park, V., Narayanan, V., and K. Leung, "FA extensions to NEMOv4 Base", Work in Progress, February 2008. [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005. [RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.
Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.