Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Tsirtsis Request for Comments: 6089 Qualcomm Updates: 5648 H. Soliman Category: Standards Track Elevate Technologies ISSN: 2070-1721 N. Montavont IT/TB G. Giaretta Qualcomm K. Kuladinithi University of Bremen January 2011 Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support
AbstractThis document introduces extensions to Mobile IPv6 that allow nodes to bind one or more flows to a care-of address. These extensions allow multihomed nodes to instruct home agents and other Mobile IPv6 entities to direct inbound flows to specific addresses. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Mobile IPv6 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Definition Update for Binding Identifier Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Flow Identification Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2.1. Flow Identification Sub-Options Definition . . . . . . 7 4.2.2. Flow Summary Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Flow Bindings Entries List and Its Relationship to Binding Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Protocol Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.1. Preferred Care-of Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.1. Sending BU with BID Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.2. Sending BU with Flow Identification Mobility Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2.3. Sending BU with a Flow Summary Option . . . . . . . . 17 5.2.4. Removing Flow Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2.5. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2.6. Receiving Binding Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2.7. Return Routability Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3. HA, MAP, and CN Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3.1. Handling Binding Identifier Mobility Options . . . . . 20 5.3.2. Handling Flow Identification Mobility Options . . . . 20 5.3.3. Handling Flow Summary Mobility Option . . . . . . . . 23 5.3.4. Flow Binding Removals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.3.5. Sending Binding Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.3.6. Packet Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
RFC3775], Dual-Stack MIPv6 (DSMIPv6) [RFC5555], and Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support [RFC3963] allow a mobile node / mobile router to manage its mobility using the binding update message, which binds one care-of address to one home address and associated mobile networks. The binding update message can be sent to the home agent. In Mobile IPv6, the binding update can also be sent to a correspondent node or to a mobility anchor point (see [RFC5380]). The semantics of the binding update are limited to care-of address changes. That is, [RFC3775], [RFC5555], and [RFC3963] do not allow a mobile node / mobile router to bind more than one address to the home address. In [RFC5648], Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support are extended to allow the binding of more than one care-of address to a home address. This specification further extends Mobile IPv6, DSMIPv6, and NEMO Basic Support to allow them to specify policies associated with each binding. A policy can contain a request for special treatment of a particular IPv4 or IPv6 flow, which is viewed as a group of packets matching a traffic selector. Hence, this specification allows a mobile node / mobile router to bind a particular flow to a care-of address without affecting other flows using the same home address. In addition, this specification allows to bind a particular flow to a particular care-of address directly with correspondent node and mobility agents (i.e., home agents [RFC3775] and mobility anchor points [RFC5380]). In this document, a flow is defined as a set of IP packets matching a traffic selector. A traffic selector can identify the source and destination IP addresses, transport protocol number, the source and destination port numbers and other fields in IP and higher-layer headers. This specification does not define traffic selectors, which are going to be defined in other specifications. This specification, however, does define the traffic selector sub-option format to be used for any specific traffic selector. Using the flow identifier option introduced in this specification, a mobile node / mobile router can bind one or more flows to a care-of address while maintaining the reception of other flows on another care-of address. The mobile node / mobile router assembles the flow binding requests based on local policies, link characteristics, and the types of applications running at the time. Such policies are outside the scope of this document. It should be noted that the flow identification mobility option can be associated with any binding update, whether it is sent to a mobility agent or a correspondent node.
Note that per-packet load balancing may have negative impacts on TCP congestion avoidance mechanisms as it is desirable to maintain order between packets belonging to the same TCP connection. This behavior is specified in [RFC2702]. Other negative impacts are also foreseen for other types of real-time connections due to the potential variations in round-trip time between packets. Moreover, per-packet load-balancing will negatively affect traffic with anti-replay protection mechanisms. Hence, per-packet load balancing is not envisioned in this specification. In the rest of the document, the term "mobile node" is used to designate either a mobile node as defined in [RFC3775] and [RFC5648], or a mobile router as defined in [RFC3963] unless stated otherwise. RFC2119]. RFC3753] and [RFC4885]. The following terms are also used in this document: Flow: A flow is a sequence of packets for which the mobile node (MN) desires special handling either by the home agent (HA), the corresponding node (CN) or the mobility anchor point (MAP). Traffic Selector: One or more parameters that can be matched against fields in the packet's headers for the purpose of classifying a packet. Examples of such parameters include the source and destination IP addresses, transport protocol number, the source and destination port numbers, and other fields in IP and higher-layer headers. Flow binding: It consists of a traffic selector, and one or more binding identifiers (BIDs). IP packets from one or more flows that match the traffic selector associated with the flow binding are forwarded to the BIDs associated with the same flow binding. Flow Identifier: A flow identifier uniquely identifies a flow binding associated with a mobile node. It is generated by a mobile node and is cached in the table of flow binding entries maintained by the MN, HA, CN, or MAP.
RFC5648], as follows: 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 = 35 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Binding ID (BID) | Status |H| BID-PRI | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------------------------+ + + : IPv4 or IPv6 Care-of Address (CoA) : + + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 1: The Binding Identifier Mobility Option BID-PRI This is a 7-bit unsigned integer placing each BID to a relative priority (PRI) with other registered BIDs. Value '0' is reserved and MUST NOT be used. A lower number in this field indicates a higher priority, while BIDs with the same BID-PRI value have equal priority meaning that, the BID used is an implementation issue. This is consistent with current practice in packet classifiers. RFC3775], and it is included in the binding update and acknowledgement messages. This option contains information that allows the receiver of a binding update to install policies on a traffic flow and route it to a given care-of address. Multiple options may exist within the same binding update message. The alignment requirement for this option is 2n.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Option Len | FID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FID-PRI | Reserved | Status | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-options (optional) ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: The Flow Identification Mobility Option Option Type 45 Option Len Length of the option in octets as per [RFC3775]. FID The Flow Identifier field is a 16-bit unsigned integer that includes the unique identifier for the flow binding. This field is used to refer to an existing flow binding or to create a new flow binding. The value of this field is set by the mobile node. FID = 0 is reserved and MUST NOT be used. FID-PRI This is a 16-bit unsigned integer priority field to indicate the priority of a particular option. This field is needed in cases where two different flow descriptions in two different options overlap. The priority field decides which policy should be executed in those cases. A lower number in this field indicates a higher priority. Value '0' is reserved and MUST NOT be used. FID-PRI MUST be unique to each of the flows pertaining to a given MN. In other words, two FIDs MUST NOT be associated with the same FID-PRI value. Status This 8-bit unsigned integer field indicates the success or failure of the flow binding operation for the particular flow in the option. This field is not relevant to the binding update message as a whole or to other flow identification options. This field is only relevant when included in the Binding Acknowledgement message and must be ignored in the
binding update message. The following values are reserved for the Status field within the flow identification mobility option: 0 Flow binding successful 128 Administratively prohibited 129 Flow binding rejected, reason unspecified 130 Flow identification mobility option malformed 131 BID not found 132 FID not found 133 Traffic selector format not supported Sub-options (optional) Zero or more sub-options, defined in Section 4.2.1. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-Opt Type |Sub-Opt Length | Sub-Option Data... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Flow Identification Sub-Option Format Sub-Opt Type 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the sub-option Type. When processing a flow identification mobility option containing an option for which the sub-option Type value is not recognized by the receiver, the receiver MUST silently ignore and skip over the sub-option, correctly handling any remaining sub-options in the same option.
Sub-Opt Len 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length in octets of the flow identification sub-option. This field indicates the length of the sub-option not including the Sub-Opt Type and Sub-Opt Length fields. Note that Sub-Opt Type '0' (Section 188.8.131.52) is a special case that does not take a Sub- Opt Length field. Sub-Option Data A variable length field that contains data specific to the sub- option. The following subsections specify the sub-option Types that are currently defined for use in the flow identification option. Implementations MUST silently ignore any sub-options that they do not understand. These sub-options may have alignment requirements. Following the convention in [RFC3775], regarding mobility options, these sub- options are aligned in a packet so that multi-octet values within the sub-option Data field of each sub-option fall on natural boundaries (i.e., fields of width n octets are placed at an integer multiple of n octets from the start of the header, for n = 1, 2, 4, or 8).
RFC5648]. This sub-option associates the flow described in a flow identification mobility option with one or more registered BIDs. When binding a flow using this sub-option, the binding identifier mobility option, defined in [RFC5648], MUST be included in either the same or an earlier binding update (BU). The binding reference sub- option is shown below. The alignment requirement for this sub-option is 2n.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Sub-Opt Type | Sub-Opt Len | BID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BID ........ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Figure 4: The Binding Reference Sub-Option Sub-Opt Type 2 Sub-Opt Len Variable BID A 16-bit unsigned integer indicating the BID that the mobile node wants to associate with the flow identification option. One or more BID fields can be included in this sub-option. Since each BID is 2 bytes long, the value of the Sub-opt Len field indicates the number of BIDs present. Number of BIDs = Sub-Opt Len/2. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Sub-Opt Type | Sub-Opt Len | TS Format | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Traffic Selector ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: The Traffic Selector Sub-Option Sub-Opt Type 3
Sub-Opt Len Variable TS Format An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic Selector Format. Value "0" is reserved and MUST NOT be used. Reserved An 8-bit reserved field. It MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver. Traffic Selector A variable-length field, the format and content of which is out of scope for this specification. The traffic selector defined in [RFC6088] is mandatory to implement. RFC3775], which includes one or more flow identifiers (FIDs) for the purpose of refreshing their state. The alignment requirement for this option is 2n. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Option Len | FID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FID ........ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Figure 6: The Flow Summary Mobility Option Option Type 44 Option Length Length of the option in octets as per [RFC3775].
FID A 16-bit unsigned integer indicating a registered FID. One or more FID fields can be included in this option. Number of FIDs = Option Len/2. RFC3775] to identify the mobile IP state maintained by the mobile node, mobility agent, and correspondent node. The binding cache includes, among others, the mobile node's home address, the registered care-of address, and the lifetime of the binding. The binding cache has been extended by [RFC5648] to include more than one care-of addresses and to associate each of them with a binding identifier (BID). This specification does not modify the Mobile IPv6 binding cache any further. Flow bindings can be thought of as a conceptual list of entries that is separate from the binding cache. The flow bindings list contains an entry for each of the registered flow bindings. Flow binding entries point to an entry in the binding cache by means of the BID. Each flow binding entry includes the following parameters: o FID (Flow Identifier): For a given mobile node, identified by its primary home address, the FID MUST uniquely identify an entry, i.e., a unique flow binding. Each mobile node can only have a single entry identified by a given FID at any one time. A given FID number space is used for all the addresses associated to a given MN by the HA (e.g., via [RFC3963]). Different mobile nodes use the same FID number space. o A Traffic Selector: Included in a traffic selector sub-option. o BID(s): The list of BIDs associated with the entry as defined by the binding reference sub-option included in the FID option that created it. o Active/Inactive flag: This flag indicates whether the entry is active or inactive. o FID-PRI: This field indicates the priority of the flow binding and is used to break the tie between overlapping flow bindings.
The flow bindings list is associated with a given mobile node, and the correspondent binding cache. An entry in the flow bindings list, however, is identified by the FID and the list is ordered according to the FID-PRI field as defined in the FID option that created each entry. A valid BID is required to make the entry 'Active'. If all of the BIDs pointed to by a given entry are deregistered [RFC5648], the flow binding entry becomes 'Inactive', in other words it does not affect data traffic. Note that an entry becomes 'Inactive' only if all of the BIDs are deregistered. If only some of the BIDs are still valid, the invalid BIDs are simply ignored. Also, note that the state described in this section is maintained by the mobile node as well as in mobility agents and correspondent nodes. As such, the mobile node is fully aware of which BIDs are valid at any time and which flow binding entries are active/inactive. Section 5 defines how these flow binding entries are manipulated by the mobile node in detail. As an example, the following represents an ordered flow binding entry table for a mobile node that has registered multiple care-of addresses and flow bindings. FID-PRI FID Traffic Selector BIDs A/I ------- --- ---------------- ---- ------- 10 4 TCP 2 Active 30 2 srcAddr=IPy 4 Inactive 40 5 UDP 1,3 Active Ordered Flow Binding Entries According to the above list of flow binding entries, all TCP traffic will match the first entry, and will be forwarded to BID2, corresponding to a given care-of address (IP3), as shown below. The second entry is marked as 'Inactive' since the BID 4 does not exist in the ordered list of BID entries below. Inactive entries do not affect traffic, i.e., packets are not matched against them. Any UDP traffic that does not match any of the earlier entries will match the third rule, at which point it will be replicated and forwarded to BIDs 1 and 3, corresponding to care-of addresses IP1 and IP2 shown below.
Finally, any remaining packets that do not match any of the entries above will be simply forwarded to the care-of address indicated by the highest order BID in the table below. In the example, such packets will be forwarded to BID1 corresponding to care-of address IP1. BID-PRI BID CoA --------- --- --- 20 1 IP1 30 3 IP2 30 2 IP3 Ordered BID Entries Mobility agent and corresponding node implementations should take care to avoid flow binding rules affecting the fundamental operation of Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. In particular, flow binding rules MUST NOT apply to Mobile IPv6 signaling generated by mobility agents and corresponding nodes communicating with a given mobile node, since that could adversely affect the operation of the protocol. Other, non-MIPv6 traffic generated by these entities SHOULD be matched against the mobile node's flow binding rules as normal.
Section 4.1). The ordered list of BIDs is used to determine how to forward a packet to a given mobile node when the packet does not match any of the flow binding entries defined in Section 4.3. A packet that does not match any of the flow binding entries SHOULD be forwarded to the care-of address identified by the BID with the highest priority, i.e., lowest BID-PRI value. Section 4.1) updates the definition of the binding identifier mobility option, originally defined in [RFC5648]. According to this specification, the BID option includes a BID-PRI field assigning each registered care-of address a priority, and thus places them in an ordered list, as also described in Section 4.3. To ensure backwards compatibility with [RFC5648], for the purpose of this specification, the field BID-PRI MUST NOT be set to zero.
Receiver implementation of this specification will take a BID-PRI field of value zero as an indication that this is a BID option of the format defined in [RFC5648]. Mobile nodes supporting this specification MUST use the BID option format defined in Section 4.1. Mobile nodes MUST also register all care-of addresses using the updated BID option format, either in the same BU as any flow identification mobility options using them or in earlier BUs. Section 5.2.1. The flow identification mobility option MUST include a unique flow identifier in the FID field. The FID need only be unique for the receiver of the binding update and for the same sender, i.e., the same FID can be used across different receivers of the binding update, for the same sender. The FID-PRI field is set to the desired unique priority of the FID, defining the order of the flow binding to be added in the list of flow binding entries, as defined in Section 4.3. The Status field is set to zero in all binding update messages. Since this flow identification mobility option is requesting the addition of a new flow binding in the list of flow bindings maintained by the receiver, the mobile node MUST include exactly one traffic selector sub-option (see Section 184.108.40.206) describing the flow associated with the new flow binding. The TS Format field of the traffic selector sub-option MUST be set to the non-zero value of the format used by the mobile node. The mobile node MUST also include exactly one BID reference sub- option (see Section 220.127.116.11) to associate the flow binding with a given set of BIDs and corresponding CoAs.
Section 18.104.22.168) describing the updated flow to be associated with the flow binding. The mobile node MAY, however, omit the traffic selector sub-option if it wants the traffic selector currently associated with the flow binding entry identified by the FID field to be maintained. The mobile node MAY include exactly one binding reference sub-option (see Section 22.214.171.124) to associate the existing flow binding with a new set of CoAs. The mobile node MAY omit the binding reference sub- option if it wants the BIDs currently associated with the flow binding entry identified by the FID field to be maintained. Note that it is also possible for the mobile node to effectively modify the effect of a flow binding entry without actually changing the entry itself. This can be done by changing the CoA associated with a given BID, which is a process defined in detail in [RFC5648]. Section 4.2.2. Each FID field included MUST be set to one of the FID values already in the list of flow binding entries. Each flow summary mobility option can identify up to 127 FIDs, so more than one such option can
be included in a binding update message as required. A given FID SHOULD NOT be included more than once in all of the flow summary mobility options included in a given binding update message. Any flow bindings (active or inactive) that are not identified in a binding update will be removed from the list of flow binding entries. Note that any inactive flow bindings, i.e., flow bindings without associated BIDs that are marked as 'Inactive' in the list of flow binding entries (see Section 4.3), MUST also be refreshed, or modified, to be maintained. If they are not included in a BU message, they will be removed. RFC5648]. When all the BIDs associated with a flow binding are removed, the flow binding MUST be marked as 'Inactive' in the list of flow binding entries, as shown in Section 4.3. In other words, the state associated with the flow binding MUST be maintained, but it no longer affects the mobile node's traffic. The MN can return an inactive flow binding to the active state by using the flow binding modification process, described in Section 126.96.36.199, to associate it again with one or more valid BIDs. RFC3775] and [RFC5648]. More specifically, if the mobile node performs a deregistration in the [RFC3775] style, all of its bindings, including flow bindings are deleted. If the mobile node, however, performs a home registration in the [RFC5648] style, then the home link is associated with a specific BID and so, as far as this specification is concerned, it is treated as any other link associated with a given BID.
RFC3775], all nodes are required to silently ignore mobility options not understood while processing binding updates. As such, a mobile node receiving a Binding Acknowledgement message in response to the transmission of a binding update message MUST determine if the Binding Acknowledgement message contains a copy of every flow identification mobility options included in the binding update. A Binding Acknowledgement without flow identification option(s), in response to a binding update with flow identification mobility option, would indicate the inability (or unwillingness) on behalf of the source node to support the extensions presented in this document. If a received Binding Acknowledgement contains a copy of each flow identification mobility option that was sent within the binding update, the Status field of each flow identification option indicates the status of the flow binding on the distant node. RFC3775]. Route optimization allows a mobile node to bind a care-of address to a home address in order to allow the correspondent node to direct the traffic to the current location of the mobile node. Before sending a binding update to correspondent node, the Return Routability Procedure needs to be performed between the mobile node and the correspondent node. This procedure is not affected by the extensions defined in this document. RFC3775]) and not mobile routers (NEMOv6 [RFC3963]). Thus, these sections only apply to correspondent nodes with respect to mobile nodes and not mobile routers.
Section 4.1) updates the definition of the binding identifier mobility option, originally defined in [RFC5648]. According to this specification, the BID option includes a BID-PRI field assigning each registered care-of address a priority, and thus places them in an ordered list (see Section 4.3). Home agents receiving BUs including BID options and flow identification options MUST logically process BID options first. This is because BID reference sub-options included in the flow identification mobility options might refer to BIDs defined in BID options included in the same message. The BID option is processed as defined in [RFC5648], but then the BID to care-of address mapping is placed in an ordered list according to the BID-PRI field of the BID option. Binding identifier registrations and deregistrations indirectly affect the MN's flow binding entries. The home agent MUST update the flow binding entries table accordingly as BIDs are added or removed (as per [RFC5648]). For example, as discussed in Section 4.3, if all of the BIDs associated with a given flow binding entry are removed (i.e., become invalid) the entry MUST be marked as 'Inactive'. While if any of the invalid BIDs associated with an inactive flow binding entry are registered (i.e., become valid), the entry MUST be marked as 'Active'. section 10.3.1 of RFC 3775, followed by the operations defined in Section 5.3.1 of this document. Home agents that do not support this specification will ignore the flow identification mobility options and all their sub-options, having no effect on the operation of the rest of the protocol. If the binding update is accepted, and the home agent is willing to support flow bindings for this MN, the home agent checks the flow identification mobility options. If more than one flow identification mobility option in the same BU has the same value in the FID field, all the flow identification mobility options MUST be rejected.
If all FID fields have different values the flow identification mobility options can be processed further and in any order, as defined by the following subsections. Figure 2 for "Flow identification option malformed". If the flow identification option does include a traffic selector sub-option, but the format indicated in the TS Format field is not supported, the home agent MUST reject this request by copying the flow identification mobility option in the BA, and setting the Status field to the value defined in Figure 2 for "Traffic Selector format not supported". Then, the home agent MUST check the binding reference sub-option. If the binding reference sub-option is not included, the home agent MUST reject this request by copying the flow identification mobility option in the BA and setting the Status field to the value defined for "Flow identification mobility option malformed" in Section 4.2. If the binding reference sub-option is present and includes one or more BIDs that are not present in the binding cache of the mobile node, the home agent MUST reject this request by copying the flow identification option in the BA and setting the Status field to the value defined for "BID not found" in Section 4.2. If the binding reference sub-option is present and includes one or more BIDs, and the BIDs exist in the mobile node's binding cache, the home agent SHOULD add a new entry in the mobile node's list of flow binding entries, as defined below. When the home agent decides to add an entry in the mobile node's list of flow binding entries, as discussed above, it MUST do it according to the following rules: the entry MUST be placed according to the order indicated by the FID-PRI field of the flow identification mobility option and it MUST include:
the FID as a key to the entry, the traffic selector included in the corresponding sub-option, the BIDs indicated in the binding reference sub-option, and the entry MUST be marked as 'Active', as shown in Section 4.3.
Section 5.3. If the value of any of the FID fields included in a flow summary mobility option is not present in the list of flow binding entries for this mobile node, the home agent MUST reject this flow binding refresh by including a flow identification mobility option in the BA for each FID that is not found, and by setting the FID field to the value of the FID that is not found and the Status field to the value defined for "FID not found" in Section 4.2. If the value of the FID field is present in the mobile nodes list of flow binding entries the, home agent SHOULD refresh the flow binding entry identified by the FID without changing any of the other parameters associated with it. If a given FID is included more than once in the same or different flow summary mobility options in the same binding update message, the duplicates can be simply ignored. Note that, an [RFC3775] deregistration binding update (with a zero lifetime) would result in deleting all bindings, including all flow bindings regardless of the presence of flow summary mobility options. A binding update (with a zero lifetime) would result in deleting all bindings, including all flow bindings regardless of the presence of flow summary mobility options. A specific binding deregistration, however, as defined in [RFC5648] (with lifetime of zero and one or more binding identifier mobility options identifying specific BIDs) does not remove all the bindings for the MN, and thus it SHOULD include flow summary mobility options to maintain the flow bindings that need to be preserved.
RFC3775]. This status code does not give information on the success or failure of flow bindings. In order to inform the mobile node about the status of the flow binding(s) requested by a mobile node, flow identification options SHOULD be included in the Binding Acknowledgement message. Specifically, the home agent SHOULD copy each flow identification mobility option received in the binding update and set its status code to an appropriate value. Note that the home agent does not need to respond specifically regarding FIDs included in a flow summary mobility option but only to those in flow identification mobility options. If an operation requested in a flow identification option by a mobile node is performed successfully by the home agent, the Status field on the copied flow identification mobility option in the BA, SHOULD be set to the value defined for "Flow binding successful" in Section 4.2; otherwise, it SHOULD be set to one of the rejection codes also defined in Section 4.2. Section 5.3.2 identifies a number of cases where specific error codes should be used. Home agents that support this specification MAY refuse to maintain flow bindings by setting the Status field of any flow identification mobility options to the value defined for "Administratively prohibited" in Section 4.2, or by just ignoring all the flow binding options. Note that BID options and their Status field are handled as defined in [RFC5648]. The BID-PRI field in a BID option included in the Binding Acknowledgement is copied from the BID-PRI field of the corresponding BID option in the binding request. RFC3775] and [RFC5555]. These rules apply to HAs, MAPs, and CNs as part of the routing process for any packet with a destination address set to a valid home address of the mobile node. For nodes other than CNs, this also applies to packets with a destination address set to an address under any of the registered prefixes. These rules apply equally to IPv6 packets as well as to IPv4 packets as per [RFC5555].
Before a packet is forwarded to the mobile node, it MUST be matched against the ordered list of flow bindings stored in the list of flow binding entries for this mobile node (see Section 4.3). A match is attempted with the traffic selector included in the first line (highest order) of the table. The first entry that creates a match defines how the packet is routed. When a packet matches the traffic selector of a given entry, a copy of the packet is forwarded to each of the care-of addresses associated with the BIDs indicated in the same line of the table. If any of the BIDs indicated does not correspond to a valid care-of address, e.g., the BID was deregistered then, that BID has no effect on the traffic. In other words, packets matching the flow binding are forwarded to the remaining BIDs, pointing to registered care-of addresses. If none of the BIDs pointed to in a flow binding entry is valid, then the entry is considered to be inactive (as defined in Section 4.3) and is skipped. In other words, packets should not be matched against that entry. If a packet does not match any of the active flow binding entries for the given MN, the packet SHOULD be forwarded to the highest order care-of address, i.e., the one associated with the BID with the lowest BID-PRI. If a packet is fragmented, only the first fragment contains all IP and transport layer headers, while subsequent fragments only contain an IP header without transport layer headers. For this reason, it is possible that subsequent fragments do not match the same traffic selector as the initial fragment of such a packet. Unless specific measures are taken, the likely outcome is that the initial fragment is routed as the MN intended while subsequent fragments are routed differently, and probably based on the default flow binding. HAs, MAPs, and CNs SHOULD take care to forward all fragments of a given packet the same way, and in accordance to the flow binding matching the first fragment of said packet. This should be possible given the fact that fragment headers include enough information to identify a fragment as part of a specific packet, but the details of how this is ensured are implementation specific and are not defined in this specification. RFC3775] and other related specifications, all of which potentially add to the size of binding update messages. Implementations SHOULD take care to minimize fragmentation by forming binding updates that are shorter than what the path MTU allows whenever possible.
This specification offers a number of mechanisms for reducing the size of binding updates. The operations defined in this specification that require the most verbose options are those registering new BIDs, Section 4.1, and identifying new flows, Section 188.8.131.52. Implementations are encouraged to keep binding updates to sizes below that of the path's MTU by making full use of the BID reference sub-option, Section 184.108.40.206, and flow summary option, Section 4.2.2, which allows them to refer to already registered care-of addresses and flow bindings, while registering new ones in subsequent binding update messages. RFC3775], [RFC5555], and [RFC3963], so it inherits the security considerations discussed in these documents. The new option allows the mobile node to associate some flows to one interface and other flows to another interface. Since the flow identification mobility option is part of the mobility header, it uses the same security as the binding update, whether it is sent to a mobility agent or to a correspondent node. This specification does not open up new fundamental lines of attack on communications between the MN and its correspondent nodes. However, it allows attacks of a finer granularity than those on the binding update. For instance, the attacker can divert or replicate flows of special interest to the attacker to an address of the attacker's choosing, if the attacker is able to impersonate the MN or modify a binding update sent by the MN. Hence, it becomes doubly critical that authentication and integrity services are applied to binding updates. Finally, when the optional anti-replay feature of Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] is employed and packets to/from different CoAs are sent on the same security association (SA), some packets could be discarded at the receiver due to the windowing mechanism used by this feature. Therefore, a sender SHOULD put traffic to/from different CoAs, but with the same HoA in the selector values, on different SAs to support Multiple Care-of Addresses appropriately. To permit this, the IPsec implementation SHOULD establish and maintain multiple SAs between a given sender and receiver, with the same selectors. Distribution of traffic among these parallel SAs to support Multiple Care-of Addresses is locally determined by the sender and is not negotiated by the Internet Key Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) protocol [RFC5996]. The receiver will process the packets from the different SAs without prejudice.
RFC3775]: This registry is available from http://www.iana.org under "Mobile IPv6 parameters". The following type numbers have been assigned for: 44 Flow Identification Mobility Option, defined in Section 4.2 45 Flow Summary Mobility Option, defined in Section 4.2.2 A new "Flow Identification Mobility Option Status Codes" namespace has been created. The following 'Status' codes are defined in this specification, in Section 4.2: 0 Flow binding successful 1-127 Unassigned. Available for success codes to be allocated via Standards Action or IESG Approval as per [RFC5226]. 128 Administratively prohibited 129 Flow binding rejected, reason unspecified 130 Flow identification mobility option malformed 131 BID not found 132 FID not found 133 Traffic selector format not supported 134-250 Unassigned. Available for reject codes to be allocated via Standards Action or IESG Approval as per [RFC5226]. 251-255 Reserved for experimental use. This small number of status codes should be sufficient for experiments with currently unforeseen error conditions.
A new "Flow Identification Sub-Options" namespace for the flow identification mobility option has been created. The sub-option space is defined in Figure 3. The following sub-option Type values are defined in this specification: 0 Pad 1 PadN 2 BID Reference 3 Traffic Selector 4-250 Unassigned. Available for allocation based on Standards Action or IESG Approval as per [RFC5226]. 251-255 Reserved for experimental use. This small number of sub-option Types should be sufficient for experiments with additional parameters associated with a flow. A new "Traffic Selector Format" namespace for the traffic selector sub-option has been created. The traffic selector format space is defined by the TS Format field in Figure 5. The following values are defined in this specification: 0 Reserved 1-250 Unassigned. Available for allocation based on Standards Action or IESG Approval as per [RFC5226]. 251-255 Reserved for experimental use. This small number of traffic selector format types should be sufficient for experiments with different ways of representing a traffic selector. Similar to the procedures specified for Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] number spaces, future allocations from the new number spaces requires Standards Action or IESG Approval as per [RFC5226].
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration", RFC 5648, October 2009. [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giaretta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, January 2011. [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", RFC 2702, September 1999. [RFC3753] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005. [RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007. [RFC5380] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L. Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Management", RFC 5380, October 2008. [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 5996, September 2010.
http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~nmontavo// Gerardo Giaretta Qualcomm EMail: email@example.com Koojana Kuladinithi University of Bremen ComNets-ikom Otto-Hahn-Allee NW 1 Bremen, Bremen 28359 Germany Phone: +49-421-218-8264 Fax: +49-421-218-3601 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org URI: http://www.comnets.uni-bremen.de/~koo/