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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6626

Network Working Group                                        G. Tsirtsis
Internet-Draft                                                   V. Park
Intended status: Standards Track                            V. Narayanan
Expires: May 9, 2008                                            Qualcomm
                                                                K. Leung
                                                                   Cisco
                                                        November 6, 2007


                  Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4
                 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-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 May 9, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).











Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


Abstract

   The base NEMOv4 specification defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 for
   mobile networks.  This specification defines a dynamic prefix
   allocation mechanism.


Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Mobile Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Home Agent Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
































Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


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 9, 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


2.  Introduction

   The base NEMOv4 specification [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] defines
   extensions to Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] for mobile networks.  This
   specification adds support for dynamic allocation of mobile prefixes
   by the home agent.













































Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


3.  Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation

   The following extension is defined according to this specification.

3.1.  Mobile Client Considerations

   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] defines that the prefix field of the
   mobile network request extension can not be set to zero.

   According to this specification, however, a mobile client MAY include
   one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field
   set to zero.  Such mobile network request extensions indicate that
   the mobile client requests mobile network prefix(es) to be assigned
   to it by the home agent.  In this case, the mobile client MAY set the
   prefix length field of such extensions to zero or to a length of its
   choice as a hint to the home agent.  According to this specification,
   mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to zero
   MAY be included in a registration request message either during
   initial registration or during a subsequent registration.

   When a mobile client receives a registration reply it MUST process it
   as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base].  If
   one or more network acknowledgement extension are included with the
   Code field set to "Success" the mobile client SHOULD treat the
   prefixes in the corresponding prefix fields as allocated prefixes and
   create the appropriate bindings as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base].

   If in response to a registration request with a mobile network
   request extension with the prefix field set to zero, a mobile client
   receives a registration reply with a Code field set to 70 "poorly
   formed request", it may use it as a hint that the home agent does not
   support dynamic prefix allocation.

   [Ed.  Note: alternatively [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] should define
   an appropriate Code in the Mobile Network Acknowledgment extension
   e.g., "Bad Prefix"

3.2.  Home Agent Considerations

   A home agent receiving a mobile network request extension with the
   prefix field set to zero MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement
   extension [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] with the prefix field set to
   the prefix allocated to the mobile client.  The length of that prefix
   is at the discretion of the home agent.  The home agent MAY take into
   account the prefix length hint if one is included in the mobile
   network request extension.  Once the home agent allocates a prefix it
   MUST maintain the prefix registration table as defined in



Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base].  Alternatively the home agent MAY
   return a mobile network acknowledgement extension with the Code field
   set to one of the negative codes defined in
   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base].

   Dynamic mobile prefix allocation as defined in this specification MAY
   be combined with dynamic home address allocation as defined in MIPv4
   [RFC3344].  In other words the home address field of the registration
   request message MAY be set to zero while the message also includes
   one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field
   also set to zero.

   Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain the prefix
   registration table as defined in [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base].

   For dynamic prefix allocation the mobile client's home address MAY be
   used to identify the client if it is not set to zero.  If the home
   Otherwise, as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and NAI [RFC2794], the NAI
   [RFC2794] extension needs to be included in the registration request,
   in which case the same extension SHOULD be used to identify the
   mobile client for prefix allocation purposes.






























Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


4.  Security Considerations

   This specification operates in the security constraints and
   requirements of MIPv4 [RFC3344], NAI [RFC2794] and
   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base].

   Home agent implementations SHOULD take steps to prevent address
   exhaustion attacks.  One way to limit the effectiveness of such an
   attack is to limit the number and size of prefixes any one mobile
   router can be allocated.









































Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA
















































Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


6.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base]
              Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu,
              "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4",
              draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-06 (work in progress),
              October 2007.

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

   [RFC2794]  Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access
              Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000.

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



































Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 2007


Authors' Addresses

   George Tsirtsis
   Qualcomm

   Phone: +908-443-8174
   Email: tsirtsis@qualcomm.com


   Vincent Park
   Qualcomm

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


   Vidya Narayana
   Qualcomm

   Phone: +858-845-2483
   Email: vidyan@qualcomm.com


   Kent Leung
   Cisco

   Phone: +408-526-5030
   Email: kleung@cisco.com























Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4     November 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).





Tsirtsis, et al.           Expires May 9, 2008                 [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/