GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5094

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

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].

Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007

 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.

Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007

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>.

Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007

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

Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 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.

Acknowledgement

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

Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5094.txt · Last modified: 2007/12/15 00:52 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki