One document matched: draft-korhonen-mip6-service-00.txt
Network Working Group J. Korhonen
Internet-Draft U. Nilsson
Expires: August 19, 2007 TeliaSonera
February 15, 2007
Service Selection for Mobile IPv6
draft-korhonen-mip6-service-00.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 19, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
In some Mobile IPv6 deployments identifying the mobile node or the
mobility service subscriber is not enough to distinguish between
multiple services possibly provisioned to the said mobile node and
its mobility service subscription. A capability to specify different
services in addition to the mobile node identity can be leveraged to
provide flexibility for mobility service providers on provisioning
multiple services to one mobility service subscription. This
document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for Mobile
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 February 2007
IPv6 that is intended to assist home agents to make a specific
service selection for the mobility service subscription during the
binding update procedure.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Service Selection Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Processing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 February 2007
1. Introduction
Mobile IPv6 [1] has a Mobile Node Identifier option (MN-NAI) [6] that
provides a flexible way to identify mobile nodes using other
identifiers than IPv6 addresses. Example of such identifier is a
Network Access Identifier (NAI) [2]. Similarly, in some Mobile IPv6
deployments identifying the mobile node or the mobility service
subscriber via a proxy representative [7] is not enough to
distinguish between multiple services possibly provisioned to the
said mobile node and its mobility service subscription.
The capability to specify different services in addition to the
mobile node identity can be leveraged to provide flexibility for
mobility service providers to provide multiple services within the
same mobility service subscription. For example:
o Provide an enterprise data access for witch the mobility service
provider hosts connectivity and mobility services on behalf of the
enterprise.
o Provide access to service domains that are otherwise not
accessible from public networks because of some mobility service
provider's business reasons.
o Provide simultaneous access to different service domains that are
separated based on policies of the mobility service provider.
o Enable easier policy assignment for mobility service providers
based on the subscribed services.
o In absence of the Service Selection option the home agent may
provide, based on operator policies, a default service. For
example, a plain Internet access could be an operator's default
mobility service.
This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for
Mobile IPv6 that is intended to assist home agents to make specific
service selections for the mobility service subscription during the
binding update procedure. The service selection may affect home
agent routing decisions and Home Address assignment policies. The
Service Selection option should be used in combination with the
Mobile Node Identifier option during the initial Binding Update at
the beginning of the mobility session.
2. Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 February 2007
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [3].
3. Service Selection Mobility Option
The Service Selection mobility option can be included in any Mobile
IPv6 Mobility Header message. If the Mobility Header message
includes any authorization related options (such as the Binding
Authorization Data option [1]) or authentication related options
(such as the Mobility Message Authentication option [8]), then the
Service Selection option MUST appear before any mobility message
authorization or authentication related options.
This option MAY be included in the initial Binding Update message
when registering to a home agent at the beginning of the mobility
session. The MN-NAI option SHOULD be included in the Binding Update
message when the Service Selection option is used. Sending the
Service Selection option in any Binding Update message is not
prohibited. It should be noted that sending this option to
correspondent nodes makes little or no sense unless the home agent
and the correspondent nodes share the same knowledge of provided
mobility services.
The Service Selection option has no alignment requirement as such.
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 = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Service Selection Mobility Option
o Type: 8-bit identifier set to TBD (to be defined by IANA) of the
type of the mobility option.
o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length of the
Service Selection mobility option in octets, excluding the Option
Type and Option Length fields.
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 February 2007
o Identifier: A variable length service identifier string used to
identify the requested service. The Identifier string is encoded
as a host name or a fully qualified domain name as defined in [4]
and [5].
'deadcoderssociety' and 'deadcoderssociety.example.com' are valid
examples of Service Selection option Identifier strings.
4. Processing Considerations
4.1. Mobile Node Considerations
A mobile node or its proxy representative MAY include the Service
Selection mobility option into any Binding Update message. The
option is used to identify the service to be associated with the
mobility session and SHOULD only be included into the initial Binding
Update message sent to a home agent. The provisioning of the service
identifiers to the mobile node or its proxy representative is out of
scope of this specification.
The placement of the Service Selection option is as follows: when
present this option MUST appear after the MN-NAI option and before
any authorization and authentication related options. The Service
Selection option is intended to be used with the MN-NAI option, but
it is also possible to use Home Address to identify the mobile node
as defined in [1].
4.2. Home Agent Considerations
Upon receiving the Service Selection option the home agent
authenticates and authorizes the mobile node. The Service Selection
option is used to assist the authorization and identifies a specific
service that is to be authorized.
The Service Selection option MAY also affect the Home Address
allocation when for example used with the MN-NAI option. For the
same NAI there MAY be different Home Addresses depending on the
identified service. Furthermore, the Service Selection option MAY
also affect the routing of the outbound IP packets in the home agent
depending on the selected service.
4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations
Unless the correspondent node and the home agent share the same
knowledge about mobility services the Service Selection option is
more or less useless information to the correspondent node. The
correspondent node SHOULD silently ignore the Service Selection
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 February 2007
option.
5. Security Considerations
The protection for the Service Selection mobility option depends on
the service that is being identified and eventually selected. If the
service selection information should not be revealed on the wire it
should be protected in a manner similar to Binding Updates and
Binding Acknowledgements.
6. IANA Considerations
A new Mobile IPv6 Mobility Option type is required for the following
new mobility option described in Section 3:
Service Selection Mobility Option is set to TBD
7. Acknowledgements
TBD.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[2] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network
Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[5] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing
Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
8.2. Informative References
[6] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury,
"Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)",
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 February 2007
RFC 4283, November 2005.
[7] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 (work in progress),
January 2007.
[8] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury,
"Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4285,
January 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Jouni Korhonen
TeliaSonera Corporation.
P.O.Box 970
FIN-00051 Sonera
FINLAND
Email: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com
Ulf Nilsson
TeliaSonera Corporation.
Marbackagatan 11
S-123 86 Farsta
SWEDEN
Email: ulf.s.nilsson@teliasonera.com
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 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).
Korhonen & Nilsson Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 07:40:30 |