One document matched: draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-01.txt
MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli
Internet-Draft Azaire Networks
Intended status: Standards Track September 24, 2007
Expires: March 27, 2008
Mobile IPv6 Experimental Messages
draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document defines a new experimental Mobility Header message and
a mobility option that can be used for experimental extensions to the
Mobile IPv6 protocol.
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Experimental Messages September 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Experimental Mobility Header message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Experimental Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Experimental Messages September 2007
1. Introduction
When experimenting with a protocol or defining a new extension to a
protocol, one needs either a protocol number, a new message or an
option to carry the information related to the experiment. Most
implementations end up using unassigned values for the new messages.
Many times this creates problems when the same value is assigned
through the IETF standards action, by IANA or if the implementation
gets deployed with these messages. Therefore it is considered a good
practice to set aside some code points that identify the experimental
protocols or messages for experimental purposes. The need for
experimental messages is shown in [3].
This document defines new messages for experimenting with extensions
to the Mobile IPv6 protocol. These messages should be strictly used
for experiments. Experiments that are successful should be
standardized in the IETF. An implementation MUST NOT be released or
deployed with the experimental messages.
This document defines a new Mobility Header message, the Experimental
Mobility message that can be sent at any time by the mobile node, the
home agent or the correspondent node. Since Mobility Header messages
cannot be combined and sent in one packet, there is always only one
Mobility Header message in any Mobile IPv6 packet. Home agent or
correspondent node implementations that do not recognize the mobility
message type, discard the message and send Binding Error message as
described in [2], with the Status field set to 2 (unrecognized MH
Type value). Mobile nodes that do not recognize the mobility message
type should discard the message and send an ICMP Parameter problem
with code 0.
This document also defines a new mobility option, the Experimental
Mobility option, which can be carried in any 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 [4]
and Proxy Mobile IPv6 [5] since these protocols also use Mobility
Header messages.
Experimental code points could potentially disrupt a deployed network
when experiments using these code points are performed in the
network. Therefore the network scope of support for experimental
values should carefully be evaluated before deploying any experiment
across extended network domains, such as the public Internet.
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Experimental Messages September 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. Experimental Mobility Header message
The following illustrates the message format for the Experimental
Mobility Header message. The 'MH Type' field in the Mobility Header
indicates that it is an Experimental Mobility Header message.
If no data is present in this message, padding is not necessary and
since the first 8 octets are excluded while calculating the length of
the message, the 'Header Len' field in the Mobility Header is set to
0.
The fields described in the message format below follow the Mobility
Header fields as defined in Section 6.1 of RFC 3775 [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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Data .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved
A 16-bit reserved field MUST be set to zero by the sender and
ignored by the receiver.
Data
Data specific to the experimental protocol extension. The total
length of the message is indicated by the 'Header Len' field in
the Mobility Header.
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Experimental Messages September 2007
4. Experimental Mobility Option
The Experimental mobility option can be included in any Mobility
Header message. If the Mobility Header message includes a Binding
Authorization Data option [2], then the Experimental Mobility Option
should appear before the Binding Authorization Data option.
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 | Data .....
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
A 8-bit field indicating that it is an experimental mobility
option.
Length
A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding
the Type and Length fields.
Data
Data related to the experimental protocol extension.
5. Security Considerations
Protection for the Experimental Mobility Header message and mobility
option depends on the experiment that is being carried out and the
kind of information that is being carried in the messages. If these
messages carry 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, they should be protected in a manner similar to
Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements.
Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
described in this document. As new values for the fields are
assigned, existing security analyzers that do not understand the new
values may fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity, if the
analyzer declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or in loss of
security if it does forward the traffic and the new values are used
as part of an attack.
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Experimental Messages September 2007
When experimental code points are deployed within an administratively
self-contained network domain, it must be ensured that that each code
point is used consistently to avoid interference between experiments.
When experimental code points are used in traffic that crosses
multiple administrative domains, the experimenters should assume that
there is a risk that the same code points will be used simultaneously
by other experiments and thus that there is a possibility that the
experiments will interfere. Particular attention should be given to
security threats that such interference might create. Please see RFC
4727 for more details [6].
6. IANA Considerations
The Experimental Mobility Header message defined in Section 3, should
have the type value allocated from the same space as the 'MH Type'
field in the Mobility Header [2].
The Experimental mobility option defined in Section 4, should have
the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options [2].
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with
whom the contents of this document were discussed first.
8. References
8.1. 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.
8.2. Informative References
[3] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[4] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
"Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
January 2005.
[5] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Experimental Messages September 2007
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 (work in progress), March 2007.
[6] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6,
UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.
Author's Address
Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
4800 Great America Pkwy
Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA
Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Experimental Messages September 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Devarapalli Expires March 27, 2008 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 09:52:33 |