[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 5454

Network Working Group                                        G. Tsirtsis
Internet-Draft                                                   V. Park
Intended status: Standards Track                                Qualcomm
Expires: May 22, 2009                                         H. Soliman
                                                    Elevate Technologies
                                                       November 18, 2008


                         Dual Stack Mobile IPv4
                     draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-08.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 May 22, 2009.
















Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


Abstract

   This specification provides IPv6 extensions to the Mobile IPv4
   protocol.  The extensions allow a dual stack node to use IPv4 and
   IPv6 home addresses as well as to move between IPv4 and dual stack
   network infrastructures.


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Non-Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Implicit and Explicit Modes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Extension Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  IPv6 Prefix Request Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  IPv6 Prefix Reply Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Mobile IP Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Registration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  Registration Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Home Agent Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.3.1.  IPv6 Reachability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.2.  Processing intercepted IPv6 Packets  . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.3.  IPv6 Multicast Membership Control  . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.4.  Foreign Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.5.  Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.6.  IPv6 Prefixes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.6.1.  Dynamic IPv6 Prefix Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.7.  Deregistration of IPv6 Prefix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.8.  Registration with a private CoA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24











Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


1.  Requirements Notation

   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 [RFC2119].














































Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


2.  Introduction

   Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] allows a mobile node with an IPv4 address to
   maintain communications while moving in an IPv4 network.

   Extensions defined in this document allow a node that has IPv4 and
   IPv6 addresses [RFC2460] to maintain communications through any of
   its addresses while moving in IPv4 or dual stack networks.

   Essentially, this specification separates the Mobile IPv4 signaling
   from the IP version of the traffic it tunnels.  Mobile IPv4 with the
   present extensions remains a signaling protocol that runs over IPv4,
   and yet can set-up both IPv4 and IPv6 tunnels over IPv4.

   The aim is two-fold:

      On one hand, Mobile IPv4 with the present extensions becomes a
      useful transition mechanism, allowing automated but controlled
      tunneling of IPv6 traffic over IPv4 tunnels.  Dual stack nodes in
      dual stack home networks can now roam to and from legacy IPv4
      networks, while IPv4 mobile nodes and networks can migrate to IPv6
      without changing mobility management, and without upgrading all
      network nodes to IPv6 at once.

      On the other hand, and more importantly, it allows dual stack
      mobile nodes and networks to utilize a single protocol for the
      movement of both IPv4 and IPv6 stacks in the network topology.

   Note that features like Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] style route
   optimization will not be possible with this solution as it still
   relies on Mobile IPv4 signaling, which does not provide route
   optimization.

2.1.  Goals

   a.  The solution supports the registration of IPv6 home prefix(s) in
       addition to regular IPv4 home address registration

   b.  The solution supports static and dynamic IPv6 prefix delegation

   c.  The solution supports the above registrations with and without FA
       support

2.2.  Non-Goals

   a.  The solution does not provide support for IPv6 care-of address
       registration




Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


2.3.  Implicit and Explicit Modes

   As defined in NEMO [RFC3963], this specification also supports two
   modes of operation; the implicit mode and the explicit mode.

   In the implicit mode, the mobile node does not include any IPv6
   prefix request extensions in the Registration Request.  The home
   agent can use any mechanism (not defined in this document) to
   determine the IPv6 prefix(es) owned by the mobile node and to set up
   forwarding for these prefixes.  In this mode of operation all traffic
   to and from the IPv6 prefixes MUST be encapsulated over the IPv4
   tunnel between the mobile node's IPv4 home address and the IPv4
   address of the home agent, and as such it is transparent to any
   foreign agent in the path.  This IPv4 tunnel is established by
   mechanisms that are out of the scope of this document on both the
   mobile node and home agent when operating in the implicit mode.

   In the explicit mode, IPv6 bindings are signalled explicitly.  The
   mobile node includes one or more IPv6 prefix request extensions in
   the Registration Request, while the home agent returns corresponding
   IPv6 prefix reply extensions to accept/reject the IPv6 bindings.

   Additionally, in the explicit mode, the mobile node (when co-located
   mode of operation is used) or the foreign agent (when present) can
   indicate whether IPv6 traffic should be tunneled to the care-of
   address or the home address of the mobile node.

   The rest of this specification is primarily defining the explicit
   mode.






















Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


3.  Extension Formats

   The following extensions are defined according to this specification.

3.1.  IPv6 Prefix Request Extension

   A new skippable extension to the Mobile IPv4 registration request
   message in accordance to the short extension format of [RFC3344] is
   defined here.

   This extension contains a mobile IPv6 network prefix and its prefix
   length.

       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      |   Sub-Type    | Prefix Length |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix                  +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 1:  IPv6 Prefix Request Extension

   Type

      TBD (DSMIPv4 Extension)(skippable type to be assigned by IANA)

   Length

      18

   Sub-Type

      1 (IPv6 Prefix Request)

   Prefix Length

      A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix;
      all insignificant (low-order) bits (beyond the Prefix Length) MUST
      be set to 0 by the originator of the option and ignored by the
      receiver




Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix

      A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix

3.2.  IPv6 Prefix Reply Extension

   A new skippable extension to the Mobile IPv4 registration reply
   message in accordance to the short extension format of [RFC3344] is
   defined here.

   This extension defines a mobile IPv6 network prefix and its prefix
   length, as well as a code.

       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      |   Sub-Type    |     Code      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Prefix Length |    Reserved   |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix                  +
      |                                                               |
      +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 2: IPv6 Prefix Reply Extension

   Type

      TBD (DSMIPv4 Extension)(skippable type to be assigned by IANA)

   Length

      20

   Sub-Type

      2 (IPv6 Prefix Reply)

   Code

      A value indicating the result of the registration request with
      respect to the IPv6 home prefix registration.  See below for
      currently defined Codes.



Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


   Prefix Length

      Indicates the prefix length of the prefix included in the Mobile
      IPv6 Network Prefix field

   Reserved

      Set to 0 by the sender, ignored by the receiver

   Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix

      A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix;
      all insignificant (low-order) bits (beyond the Prefix Length) MUST
      be set to 0 by the originator of the option and ignored by the
      receiver

   The following values are defined for use as a Code value in the above
   extension

      0 registration accepted, IPv6 to be tunneled to HoA

      1 registration accepted, IPv6 to be tunneled to CoA

      8 registration rejected, reason unspecified

      9 registration rejected, administratively prohibited

   Note that a registration reply that does not include an IPv6 prefix
   reply extension, when received in response to a registration request
   carrying at least one instance of the IPv6 prefix request extension,
   indicates that the home agent does not support IPv6 extensions and
   thus has ignored such extensions in the registration request.

3.3.  IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension

   A new skippable extension to the Mobile IPv4 registration request
   message in accordance to the short extension format of [RFC3344] is
   defined here.

   By including this extension in a registration request the sender
   indicates that IPv6 traffic can be tunneled to the mobile node's CoA.

   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      |    Sub-Type   |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


                  Figure 3: IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension

   Type

      TBD (DSMIPv4 Extension) (skippable type to be assigned by IANA)

   Length

      2

   Sub-Type

      3 (IPv6 Tunneling Mode)

   Reserved

      Set to 0 by the sender, ignored by the receiver


































Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


4.  Mobile IP Registrations

4.1.  Registration Request

   A mobile node MAY include in a registration request one or more IPv6
   prefix request extensions defined in this specification.

   A mobile node MAY also include exactly one IPv6 tunneling mode
   extension when it uses the co-located care-of address mode of
   [RFC3344].

   When IPv6 prefix and/or IPv6 tunneling mode extensions are used by
   the mobile IP client, they MUST be placed after the registration
   request header and before the mobile - home authentication extension
   so they MUST be included in the computation of any authentication
   extension.

   A foreign agent MAY include exactly one IPv6 tunneling mode
   extension, defined in this specification, in a registration request
   when a mobile node registers using the care-of address mode via the
   foreign agent.

   When the IPv6 tunneling mode extension is used by a foreign agent it
   MUST be placed after the mobile - home authentication extensions and
   before the foreign - home authentication extension so they MUST be
   included in the computation of the foreign - home authentication
   extension when one exists.

4.2.  Registration Reply

   The mechanism described in this specification depends on skippable
   extensions.  For that reason, a registration reply that does not
   include an IPv6 prefix reply extension, in response to a registration
   request including an IPv6 prefix request extension, indicates that
   the home agent does not support IPv6 extensions and has ignored the
   request.

   If an IPv6 prefix reply extension is included in a registration
   reply, then the extension indicates the success or failure of the
   IPv6 prefix registration.  The IPv6 prefix reply extension does not
   affect in any way the code value in the registration reply header but
   it is superseded by it.  In other words if the code field in the
   registration reply header is set to a reject code, then all IPv6
   prefix request extensions are also rejected.  If the code field in
   the registration reply header, however, is set to an accept code,
   then an IPv6 prefix reply extension with a code field set to a reject
   code only rejects the binding for the specific IPv6 prefix indicated
   in the same extension.



Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


   Note that a rejecting IPv6 prefix reply extension has the same effect
   as not including such an extension at all, in the sense that in both
   cases the mobile node and foreign agent must act as if the
   corresponding IPv6 prefix request extension included in the
   registration request was rejected.  Of course, the inclusion of the
   IPv6 prefix reply extension allows the home agent to indicate why a
   given IPv6 prefix request extension was rejected.  A detailed
   description of how the mobile node handles different IPv6 prefix
   reply extension code values and the absence of IPv6 prefix reply
   extensions is given in Section 4.5.

4.3.  Home Agent Considerations

   The dual stack home agent defined in this specification is a Mobile
   IPv4 home agent in that, it MUST operate as defined in MIPv4
   [RFC3344].  In addition to that, the following mechanisms are defined
   in this specification.

   For each IPv6 prefix request extension included in a valid
   registration request, a home agent that supports this specification
   SHOULD include a corresponding IPv6 prefix reply extension in the
   registration reply message.  The home agent MUST NOT include more
   than one IPv6 prefix reply extension for the same prefix.  For each
   accepted IPv6 prefix the home agent MUST decide the tunneling mode it
   is going to use and set the code field of the IPv6 prefix reply
   extension to the appropriate value.  The IPv6 prefix field of each of
   the IPv6 prefix reply extensions included in the registration reply
   MUST match the IPv6 prefix field of an IPv6 prefix request extension
   included in the corresponding registration request message.

   When the home agent sends a successful registration reply to the
   mobile node, with the code field of a corresponding IPv6 prefix reply
   extension set to one of the "registration accepted" values, the home
   agent indicates that the IPv6 prefix is registered for the lifetime
   granted for the binding.  It also indicates the tunneling mode used
   i.e., tunneling to home address or care-of address, based on the
   value of the code field used in the IPv6 prefix reply extension.

   Note that since only IPv6 prefixes (and not addresses) are supported
   by this specification, there is no need for Duplicate Address
   Detection.  The home agent, however, MUST check that registered
   prefixes are not overlapping so that all addresses under each
   registered prefix belong to a single mobile node at any one time.
   These prefixes MUST NOT appear as on-link to any other node (e.g.,
   via Router Advertisements).






Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


4.3.1.  IPv6 Reachability

   For each registered IPv6 prefix, the home agent MUST advertise its
   reachability as defined in NEMO [RFC3963], section 6.3.

4.3.2.  Processing intercepted IPv6 Packets

   A dual stack home agent that supports the IPv6 extensions defined in
   this specification, MUST keep track of the following IPv6 related
   state for the mobile nodes it supports, in addition to the state
   defined in [RFC3344].

   - Registered IPv6 prefix(es) and prefix length(s)

   - Tunneling mode for IPv6 traffic:

      - Tunnel to IPv4 HoA and accept IPv6 tunneled from IPv4 HoA.

      - Tunnel to CoA and accept IPv6 tunneled from CoA.

   When IPv6 traffic is encapsulated over the tunnel between the HA and
   the mobile node's care-off address, the tunneling mechanism used
   should be the same as the mechanism negotiated by the Mobile IP
   header as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344].  In that case, when IPinIP
   encapsulation is negotiated, IPv6 is tunneled over IPv4 according to
   [RFC4213].  GRE and Minimal Encapsulation techniques also allow
   tunneling of IPv6 packets by setting the Protocol Type [RFC2784] and
   Protocol [RFC2004] fields correspondingly, to the appropriate payload
   type defined for IPv6 by IANA.  When, however, IPv6 traffic is
   encapsulated over the tunnel between the HA and the mobile node's
   home address, IPv6 is always tunneled over IPv4 according to
   [RFC4213], no matter what tunneling mechanism is negotiated in MIPv4
   signaling.

   Tunneling mode selection for IPv6 traffic depends on the following
   parameters in a successful registration request:

   1) A registration request is received with one or more IPv6 prefix
   request extensions.  An IPv6 tunneling mode extension is not
   included.

      All IPv6 packets destined to the registered IPv6 prefix(es) MUST
      be tunneled by the home agent to the registered IPv4 home address
      of the mobile node.  The home agent first encapsulates the IPv6
      packet, addressing it to the mobile node's IPv4 home address, and
      then tunnels this encapsulated packet to the foreign agent.  This
      extra level of encapsulation is required so that IPv6 routing
      remains transparent to a foreign agent that does not support IPv6.



Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


      When received by the foreign agent, the unicast encapsulated
      packet is detunneled and delivered to the mobile node in the same
      way as any other packet.  The mobile node must decapsulate the
      received IPv4 packet in order to recover the original IPv6 packet.

      Additionally, the home agent MUST be prepared to accept reverse
      tunneled packets from the IPv4 home address of the mobile node
      encapsulating IPv6 packets sent by that mobile node.

   2) A registration request is received with one or more IPv6 prefix
   request extensions.  An IPv6 tunneling mode extension is included.

      All IPv6 packets destined to the registered IPv6 prefix(es) SHOULD
      be tunneled by the home agent to the registered care-of address of
      the mobile node.  Additionally, the home agent SHOULD be prepared
      to accept reverse tunneled packets from the care-of address of the
      mobile node encapsulating IPv6 packets sent by that mobile node.
      The home agent MAY ignore the presence of the IPv6 tunneling mode
      extension and act as in case (1) above.

   The home agent SHOULD check that all inner IPv6 packets received from
   the mobile node over a tunnel with the mobile node's home address or
   the care-of address as the outer source address, include a source
   address that falls under the registered IPv6 prefix(es) for that
   mobile node.  If the source address of the outer header of a tunneled
   packet is not the registered IPv4 care-of address or the registered
   IPv4 home addresses, the packet SHOULD be dropped.  If the source
   address of the inner header of an tunneled packet does not match any
   of the registered prefixes the packet SHOULD be dropped.

   Multicast packets addressed to a group to which the mobile node has
   successfully subscribed, MUST be tunneled to the mobile node.

4.3.3.  IPv6 Multicast Membership Control

   IPv6 multicast membership control is provided as defined in MIPv6
   [RFC3775], Section 10.4.3.  The only clarification required for the
   purpose of this specification is that all MLD [RFC2710] or MLDv2
   [RFC3810] messages between the mobile node and the home agent MUST be
   tunneled between the mobile node and the home agent, bypassing the
   foreign agent.  Note that if tunneling to the care-of address has
   been negotiated for other traffic, then the rest of the traffic
   continues using this tunnel.

4.4.  Foreign Agent Considerations

   A dual stack foreign agent that supports the IPv6 extensions defined
   in this specification MUST keep track of the following IPv6 related



Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


   state for the mobile IP clients it supports in addition to the state
   defined in [RFC3344].

   - IPv6 Prefix(es) and Prefix Length(s)

   - Tunneling mode for IPv6 traffic:

      - accept IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4 and reverse tunnel IPv6

      - IPv6 is tunneled directly to the IPv4 HoA so the foreign agent
      will not provide encapsulation/decapsulation services for IPv6
      traffic for this mobile node.

   When a foreign agent receives a registration request with IPv6 prefix
   request extension(s) it has the following choices:

   1) Ignore the extension(s).  The registration request is forwarded as
   is to the home agent.

      The foreign agent SHOULD operate according to MIPv4 [RFC3344].

   2) Attach an IPv6 tunneling mode extension to the registration
   request sent to the home agent.

      The foreign agent MUST be prepared to decapsulate and deliver IPv6
      packets, in addition to the IPv4 packets, sent to it in the home
      agent to foreign agent tunnel for that mobile node.  The foreign
      agent MUST be prepared to receive IPv6 packets from the mobile
      node, in addition to IPv4 packets.  All IPv6 traffic MUST be
      reverse tunneled to the home agent by the foreign agent
      irrespectively from the reverse tunneling setting negotiated for
      IPv4 packets by mechanisms in [RFC3024].

   If the foreign agent sets the R flag included in the mobility agent
   advertisement [RFC3344] and a mobile node uses the co-located address
   mode of operation, the foreign agent MUST NOT include an IPv6
   tunneling mode extension in the registration request messages sent
   from that mobile node.

4.5.  Mobile Node Considerations

   A dual stack mobile node that supports the extensions described in
   this document MAY use these extensions to register its IPv6
   prefix(es) while moving between access routers.

   The mobile node MAY include one or more IPv6 prefix request
   extension(s) in the registration request.




Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


   In this case the mobile MUST take the following action depending on
   the extensions included in the registration reply it receives in
   response to the registration request:

   1) The registration reply does not include any IPv6 prefix reply
   extensions.

      The mobile node SHOULD assume that the home agent does not support
      the extensions defined in this specification.  The mobile node
      SHOULD continue to operate according to MIPv4 [RFC3344].

   2) The registration reply includes one or more IPv6 prefix reply
   extensions.

      The mobile node MUST match each IPv6 prefix reply extension with
      one of the IPv6 prefix request extensions earlier included in the
      corresponding registration request message.

      If a matching IPv6 prefix reply extension is not included for one
      or more of corresponding IPv6 prefix request extensions included
      in the registration request message, the mobile node SHOULD assume
      that these IPv6 prefixes are rejected.

      For each matching IPv6 prefix reply extension the mobile node MUST
      inspect the code field.  If the field is set to a rejection code
      then the corresponding IPv6 prefix registration has been rejected.
      If the code field is set to an acceptance code then the
      corresponding IPv6 prefix registration has been accepted.

      If the code field is set to "0" then the mobile node MUST be
      prepared to send/receive IPv6 packets encapsulated in the
      bidirectional tunnel between the home agent address and the
      registered IPv4 home address of the mobile node.

      If the code field is set to "1" then the mobile node MUST act as
      follows:

      - If the foreign agent care-of address mode of operation is used,
      the mobile node MUST be prepared to send/receive IPv6 traffic on
      its interface natively (i.e., without any Mobile IP related tunnel
      headers).  If reverse tunneling is negotiated, then IPv6 traffic
      sent by the mobile node may be reverse tunneled via the foreign
      agent using either the direct delivery style or the encapsulating
      delivery style as defined in [RFC3024] for IPv4 traffic.

      - If the co-located care-of address mode is used, the mobile node
      MUST be prepared to send/receive IPv6 packets over the
      bidirectional tunnel between the home agent address and its co-



Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


      located care-of address.

   The mobile node SHOULD include exactly one IPv6 tunneling mode
   extension if it uses the co-located care-of address model and it
   wants to request that IPv6 packets are tunneled to its co-located
   care-of address.  If the mobile node uses the co-located care-of
   address model but it does not include the IPv6 tunneling mode
   extension, the home agent will tunnel IPv6 traffic to the mobile
   node's IPv4 home address.  The mobile node MUST NOT include an IPv6
   tunneling mode extension if it uses the foreign agent care-of address
   mode of operation.  Note that if the mobile node includes an IPv6
   tunneling mode extension in this case, IPv6 packets could be tunneled
   to the FA by the HA.  The FA is then likely to drop them since it may
   not have appropriate state to process them.

4.6.  IPv6 Prefixes

   An implementation can use any number of mechanisms to allocate IPv6
   prefixes to a mobile node.  Once one or more IPv6 prefixes are
   allocated, they can be registered using the extensions and mechanism
   already described in this specification.

   How a home agent decides to accept an IPv6 prefix for a given mobile
   node is out of scope of this specification.  Local configuration or
   external authorization via an authorization system e.g., Diameter
   [RFC3588], or other mechanisms may be used to make such
   determination.

4.6.1.  Dynamic IPv6 Prefix Delegation

   A dual stack mobile node MAY use prefix delegation as defined in
   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] to get access to IPv6 prefixes.
   In that case, if the mobile node is not directly attached to its home
   agent, the mobile node MUST first register its IPv4 home address as
   per MIPv4 [RFC3344].  When that is done the mobile node can generate
   a link local IPv6 address and use it to send DHCP messages according
   to [RFC3633].  All IPv6 messages at this stage MUST be tunneled over
   the IPv4 tunnel between the mobile node's IPv4 home address and the
   home agent's IPv4 address.

   Once prefixes are delegated, and assuming explicit mode is used, the
   mobile node SHOULD send a registration request with appropriate IPv6
   prefix request extensions to the home agent to register the delegated
   prefixes.







Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


4.7.  Deregistration of IPv6 Prefix

   The mobile IP registration lifetime included in the registration
   request header is valid for all the bindings created by the
   registration request, which may include bindings for IPv6 prefix(es).

   A registration request with a zero lifetime can be used to remove all
   bindings from the home agent.

   A re-registration request with non-zero lifetime can be used to
   deregister some of the registered IPv6 prefixes by not including
   corresponding IPv6 prefix request extensions in the registration
   request message.

4.8.  Registration with a private CoA

   If the care-of address is a private address then Mobile IP NAT
   Traversal as [RFC3519] MAY be used in combination with the extensions
   described in this specification.  In that case, to transport IPv6
   packets, the next header field of the Mobile Tunnel Data message
   header [RFC3519] MUST be set to the value for IPv6.






























Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


5.  Security Considerations

   This specification operates in the security constraints and
   requirements of [RFC3344].  It extends the operations defined in
   [RFC3344] for IPv4 home addresses to cover home IPv6 prefixes and
   provides the same level of security for both IP address versions.

   As defined in the security considerations section of RFC3344, ingress
   filtering in the data path may prevent mobiles from using triangular
   routing for their IPv6 communications even if the foreign agent used
   supports the dual stack extensions defined in this specification.  In
   such cases reverse tunneling can be used to allow for effective
   ingress filtering in intermediate routers without blocking IPv6
   traffic to reach its destination.

   Home agents MUST perform appropriate checks for reverse tunneled IPv6
   packets similar to what is defined in [RFC3024] for IPv4 packets.
   The check defined in [RFC3024] requires that the outer header's
   source address is set to a registered care-of address for the mobile
   node and as such the same check protects from attacks whether the
   encapsulated (inner) header is IPv4 or IPv6.

   In addition to that, the home agent SHOULD check that the source
   address of the inner header is a registered IPv4 home address or IPv6
   prefix for this mobile node.  If that is not the case, the home agent
   SHOULD silently discard the packet and log the event as a security
   exception.

   Security devices should look for IPv6 packets encapsulated over IPv4
   either directly to the mobile node's care-of address or via double
   encpasulation first to the mobile node's IPv4 home address and then
   to the mobile node's care-of addres.  Interactions with Mobile IPv4
   and IPsec have been covered elsewhere, for instance in [RFC5265] and
   [RFC5266].

















Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


6.  IANA Considerations

   This specification requires the allocation of a new type number for
   DSMIPv4 extensions, from the space of numbers for skippable mobility
   extensions (i.e., 128-255), defined for Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers, under extensions
   appearing in Mobile IP control messages..

   This specification also creates a new subtype space for the type
   number of this extension.  The subtype values 1, 2 and 3 are defined
   in this specification, while the rest of the sub-types are reserved
   and available for allocation based on expert review.

   Finally, this specification creates a new space for the code field of
   the IPv6 prefix reply extension.  Values 0, 1, 8, and 9 are defined
   in this specification.  Values 2-7 are reserved for accept codes and
   values 10-255 are reserved for reject codes.

   Similar to the procedures specified for Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] number
   spaces, future allocations from the two number spaces require expert
   review [RFC5226].






























Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


7.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Pat Calhoun, Paal Engelstad, Tom Hiller and Pete McCann for
   earlier work on this subject.  Thanks also to Alex Petrescu for
   various suggestions.  Special thanks also to Sri Gundavelli and Kent
   Leung for their thorough review and suggestions.













































Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC3024]  Montenegro, G., "Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP,
              revised", RFC 3024, January 2001.

   [RFC3344]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
              August 2002.

   [RFC3519]  Levkowetz, H. and S. Vaarala, "Mobile IP Traversal of
              Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices", RFC 3519,
              April 2003.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
              Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
              RFC 3963, January 2005.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2004]  Perkins, C., "Minimal Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2004,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              October 1999.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.



Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              March 2000.

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
              Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
              Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [RFC5265]  Vaarala, S. and E. Klovning, "Mobile IPv4 Traversal across
              IPsec-Based VPN Gateways", RFC 5265, June 2008.

   [RFC5266]  Devarapalli, V. and P. Eronen, "Secure Connectivity and
              Mobility Using Mobile IPv4 and IKEv2 Mobility and
              Multihoming (MOBIKE)", BCP 136, RFC 5266, June 2008.




































Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


Authors' Addresses

   George Tsirtsis
   Qualcomm

   Email: tsirtsis@googlemail.com


   Vincent Park
   Qualcomm

   Phone: +908-947-7084
   Email: vpark@qualcomm.com


   Hesham Soliman
   Elevate Technologies

   Phone: +614-111-410-445
   Email: hesham@elevatemobile.com































Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           Dual Stack Mobile IPv4            November 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.











Tsirtsis, et al.          Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/