One document matched: draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-00.txt
MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli
Internet-Draft Azaire Networks
Intended status: Standards Track A. Patel
Expires: August 25, 2007 K. Leung
Cisco
February 21, 2007
Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.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 August 25, 2007.
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.
Devarapalli, et al. Expires August 25, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option February 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7
Devarapalli, et al. Expires August 25, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option February 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 extensions to protocols can cause serious
interoperability issues if they are not used carefully. The vendor
specific extensions MUST be standardized in the IETF if they are to
be deployed in a large scale or if multiple vendors are involved in a
particular system or deployment. Experience has shown that vendor
specific extensions benefit from IETF review and standardization.
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.
Devarapalli, et al. Expires August 25, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option February 2007
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Data .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility
option.
Length
A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding
the Type and Length fields.
Vendor ID
The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/
Organization as defined by IANA.
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.
5. IANA Considerations
The Vendor Specific mobility option defined in Section 3, should have
the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options [2].
Devarapalli, et al. Expires August 25, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option February 2007
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with
whom the contents of this document were discussed first.
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",
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 (work in progress),
January 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
4800 Great America Pkwy
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
Devarapalli, et al. Expires August 25, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option February 2007
Kent Leung
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: kleung@cisco.com
Devarapalli, et al. Expires August 25, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option February 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, et al. Expires August 25, 2007 [Page 7]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 09:56:55 |