OpenRFC.org Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
 
<< Previous <<      RFC 5094      >> Next >>    
Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option.
V. Devarapalli, A. Patel, K. Leung. December 2007.

 
[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]
 

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]

   

[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.