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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 4067

Seamoby WG                                         J. Loughney (editor)
Internet Draft                                              M. Nakhjiri
Category: Experimental                                       C. Perkins
<draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-09.txt>                               R. Koodli
Expires: October 13, 2004                                April 14, 2004



                       Context Transfer Protocol



Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright   (C) The Internet Society 2004.  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document presents a context transfer protocol that enables
   authorized context transfers.  Context transfers allow better support
   for node based mobility so that the applications running on mobile
   nodes can operate with minimal disruption.  Key objectives are to
   reduce latency, packet losses and avoiding re-initiation of signaling
   to and from the mobile node.




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   Table of Contents

      1. Introduction
      1.1 The Problem
      1.2 Conventions Used in This Document
      1.3 Abbreviations Used in the Document
      2. Protocol Overview
      2.1 Context Transfer Scenarios
      2.2 Context Transfer Message Format
      2.3 Context Types
      2.4 Context Data Block (CTB)
      2.5 Messages
      3. Transport
      3.1 Inter-Router Transport
      3.2 MN-AR Transport
      4. Error Codes and Constants
      5. Examples and Signaling Flows
      5.1 Network controlled, Initiated by pAR, Predictive
      5.2 Network controlled, Initiated by nAR, Reactive
      5.3 Mobile controlled, Predictive New L2 up/old L2 down
      6. Security Considerations
      6.1 Threats
      6.2 Access Router Considerations
      6.3 Mobile Node Considerations
      7. IANA Considerations
      8. Acknowledgements & Contributors
      9. References
      9.1 Normative References
      9.2 Non-Normative References
      Appendix A. Timing and Trigger Considerations
      Appendix B. Multicast Listener Context Transfer
      Authors' Addresses
      Full Copyright Statement
      Intellectual Property
      Acknowledgement
















Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


1. Introduction

   This document describes the Context Transfer Protocol overview, which
   provides:

      * Representation for feature contexts.
      * Messages to initiate and authorize context transfer, and notify
        a mobile node of the status of the transfer.
      * Messages for transferring contexts prior to, during and after
        handovers.

   The proposed protocol is designed to work in conjunction with other
   protocols in order to provide seamless mobility.  The protocol
   supports both IPv4 and IPv6, though support for IPv4 private
   addresses is for future study.

1.1 The Problem

   "Problem Description: Reasons For Performing Context Transfers
   between Nodes in an IP Access Network" [RFC3374] defines the
   following main reasons why Context Transfer procedures may be useful
   in IP networks.

  1) The primary motivation, as mentioned in the introduction, is the
     need to quickly re-establish context transfer-candidate services
     without requiring the mobile host to explicitly perform all
     protocol flows for those services from scratch. An example of a
     service is included in Appendix B.

  2) An additional motivation is to provide an interoperable solution
     that supports various Layer 2 radio access technologies.


1.2 Conventions Used in This Document

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.3 Abbreviations Used in the Document

   Mobility Related Terminology [TERM] defines basic mobility
   terminology.  In addition to the material in that document, we use
   the following terms and abbreviation in this document.

   CTP             Context Transfer Protocol

   DoS             Denial-of-Service



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   FPT             Feature Profile Types

   PCTD            Predictive Context Transfer Data

2. Protocol Overview

   This section provides a protocol overview. A context transfer can be
   either started by a request from the mobile node ("mobile
   controlled") or at the initiative of either the new or the previous
   access router ("network controlled").

    * The mobile node (MN) sends the CT Activate Request to its current
      access router (AR) immediately prior to handover whenever possible
      to initiate predictive context transfer. In any case, the MN
      always sends the CTAR message to new AR (nAR). If the contexts are
      already present, nAR verifies the authorization token present in
      CTAR with its own computation using the parameters supplied by the
      previous access router (pAR), and subsequently activates those
      contexts. If the contexts are not present, nAR requests pAR to
      supply them using the Context Transfer Request message, in which
      it supplies the authorization token present in CTAR.

    * Either nAR or pAR may request or start (respectively) context
      transfer based on internal or network triggers (see Appendix A).

   The Context Transfer protocol typically operates between a source
   node and a target node. In the future, there may be multiple target
   nodes involved; the protocol described here would work with multiple
   target nodes. For simplicity, we describe the protocol assuming a
   single receiver or target node.

   Typically, the source node is a MN's pAR and the target node is MN's
   nAR. Context Transfer takes place when an event, such as a handover,
   takes place. We call such an event a Context Transfer Trigger. In
   response to such a trigger, the pAR may transfer the contexts; the
   nAR may request contexts; and the MN may send a message to the
   routers to transfer contexts. Such a trigger must be capable of
   providing the necessary information (such as the MN's IP address) by
   which the contexts are identified, the IP addresses of the access
   routers, and authorization to transfer context.

   Context transfer protocol messages use Feature Profile Types (FPTs)
   that identify the way that data is organized for the particular
   feature contexts. The FPTs are registered in a number space (with
   IANA Type Numbers) that allows a node to unambiguously determine the
   type of context and the context parameters present in the protocol
   messages.  Contexts are transferred by laying out the appropriate
   feature data within Context Data Blocks according to the format in



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   Section 2.3, as well as any IP addresses necessary to associate the
   contexts to a particular MN. The context transfer initiation messages
   contain parameters that identify the source and target nodes, the
   desired list of feature contexts and IP addresses to identify the
   contexts. The messages that request transfer of context data also
   contain an appropriate token to authorize the context transfer.

   Performing context transfer in advance of the MN attaching to nAR can
   increase handover performance.  For this to take place, certain
   conditions must be met.  For example, pAR must have sufficient time
   and knowledge about the impending handover. This is feasible, for
   instance, in Mobile IP fast handovers [LLMIP][FMIPV6]. Additionally,
   many cellular networks have mechanisms to detect handovers in
   advance. However, when the advance knowledge of impending handover is
   not available, or if a mechanism such as fast handover fails,
   retrieving feature contexts after the MN attaches to nAR is the only
   available means for context transfer. Performing context transfer
   after handover might still be better than having to re-establish all
   the contexts from scratch. Finally, some contexts may simply need to
   be transferred during handover signaling. For instance, any context
   that gets updated on a per-packet basis must clearly be transferred
   only after packet forwarding to the MN on its previous link is
   terminated.

2.1 Context Transfer Scenarios

   The Previous Access Router transfers feature contexts under two
   general scenarios.

2.1.1 Scenario 1

   The pAR receives a Context Transfer Activate Request (CTAR) message
   from the MN whose feature contexts are to be transferred, or it
   receives an internally generated trigger (e.g., a link-layer trigger
   on the interface to which the MN is connected). The CTAR message,
   described in Section 2.5, provides the IP address of nAR, the IP
   address of MN on pAR, the list of feature contexts to be transferred
   (by default requesting all contexts to be transferred), and a token
   authorizing the transfer. In response to a CT-Activate Request
   message or to the CT trigger, pAR predictively transmits a Context
   Transfer Data (CTD) message that contains feature contexts.  This
   message, described in Section 2.5, contains the MN's previous IP
   address. It also contains parameters for nAR to compute an
   authorization token to verify the MN's token present in CTAR message.
   Recall that the MN always sends CTAR message to nAR regardless of
   whether it sent the CTAR message to pAR. The reason for this is that
   there is no means for the MN to ascertain that context transfer
   reliably took place. By always sending the CTAR message to nAR, the



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   Context Transfer Request (see below) can be sent to pAR if necessary.

   When context transfer takes place without the nAR requesting it, nAR
   requires MN to present its authorization token. Doing this locally at
   nAR when the MN attaches to it improves performance and increases
   security, since the contexts are highly likely to be present already.
   Token verification takes place at the router possessing the contexts.

2.1.2 Scenario 2

   In the second scenario, pAR receives a Context Transfer Request (CT-
   Req), described in Section 2.5, message from nAR.  The nAR itself
   generates the CT-Req message as a result of receiving the CTAR
   message, or, alternatively, from receiving a context transfer
   trigger. In the CT-Req message, nAR supplies the MN's previous IP
   address, the FPTs for the feature contexts to be transferred, the
   sequence number from the CTAR, and the authorization token from the
   CTAR. In response to CT-Req message, pAR transmits a Context Transfer
   Data (CTD) message that includes the MN's previous IP address and
   feature contexts.  When it receives a corresponding CTD message, nAR
   may generate a CTD Reply (CTDR) message to report the status of
   processing the received contexts. The nAR installs the contexts once
   it has received them from the pAR.

2.2 Context Transfer Message Format

   A CTP message consists of a message-specific header and one or more
   data blocks.  Data blocks may be bundled together in order to ensure
   a more efficient transfer.  On the inter-AR interface, SCTP is used
   so fragmentation should not be a problem. On the MN-AR interface, the
   total packet size, including transport protocol and IP protocol
   headers SHOULD be less than the path MTU, in order to avoid packet
   fragmentation. Each message contains a three bit version number field
   in the low order octet, along with the 5 bit message type code. This
   specification only applies to Version 1 of the protocol, and the
   therefore version number field MUST be set to 0x1. If future
   revisions of the protocol make binary incompatible changes, the
   version number number MUST be incremented.

2.3 Context Types

   Contexts are identified by FPT code, which is a 16-bit unsigned
   integer. The meaning of each context type is determined by a
   specification document and the context type numbers are to be
   tabulated in a registry maintained by IANA [IANA], and handled
   according to the message specifications in this document.  The
   instantiation of each context by nAR is determined by the messages in
   this document along with the specification associated with the



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   particular context type. The following diagram illustrates the
   general format for CTP messages:

           +----------------------+
           |    Message Header    |
           +----------------------+
           |     CTP Data 1       |
           +----------------------+
           |     CTP Data 2       |
           +----------------------+
           |         ...          |

   Each context type specification contains the following details:
       - Number, size (in bits), and ordering of data fields in the
         state variable vector which embodies the context.
       - Default values (if any) for each individual datum of the
         context state vector.
       - Procedures and requirements for creating a context at a new
         access router, given the data transferred from a previous
         access router, and formatted according to the ordering rules
         and date field sizes presented in the specification.
       - If possible, status codes for success or failure related to the
         context transfer.  For instance, a QoS context transfer might
         have different status codes depending on which elements of the
         context data failed to be instantiated at nAR.

2.4 Context Data Block (CTB)

   The Context Data Block (CTB) is used both for request and response
   operation. When a request is constructed, only the first 4 bytes are
   typically necessary (See CTAR below). When used for transferring the
   actual feature context itself, the context data is present, and
   sometimes the presence vector is present.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Feature Profile Type (FTP)  |  Length       |P|  Reserved   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    Presence Vector (if P = 1)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                            Data                               ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Feature Profile Type
                                 16 bit integer, assigned by IANA,
                                 indicating the type of data
                                 included in the Data field



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


            Length               Message length in units of 8 octet
                                 words.

            'P' bit              0 = No presence vector
                                 1 = Presence vector present.

            Reserved             Reserved for future use. Set to
                                 zero by the sender.

            Data                 Context type-dependent data, whose
                                 length is defined by the Length
                                 Field. If the data is not 64-bit
                                 aligned, the data field is
                                 padded with zeros.

   The Feature Profile Type (FPT) code indicates the type of data in the
   data field. Typically, this will be context data but it might be an
   error indication.  The 'P' bit, which is the high order bit in the
   Length field, specifies whether or not the "presence vector" is used.
   When the presence vector is in use, the Presence Vector is
   interpreted to indicate whether particular data fields are present
   (and containing non-default values).  The ordering of the bits in the
   presence vector is the same as the ordering of the data fields
   according to the context type specification, one bit per data field
   regardless of the size of the data field.  The Length field indicates
   the size of the CTB in 8 octet words including the first 4 bytes
   starting from FPT.

   Notice that the length of the context data block is defined by the
   sum of lengths of each data field specified by the context type
   specification, plus 4 bytes if the 'P' bit is set, minus the
   accumulated size of all the context data that is implicitly given as
   a default value.

2.5 Messages

   In this section, the CTP messages are defined. The MN for which
   context transfer protocol operations are undertaken is always
   identified by its previous IP access address.  At any time, only one
   context transfer operation per MN may be in progress so that the CTDR
   message unambiguously identifies which CTD message is acknowledged
   simply by including the MN's identifying previous IP address. The 'V'
   flag indicates whether the IP addresses are IPv4 or IPv6.

2.5.1 Context Transfer Activate Request (CTAR) Message

   This message is always sent by MN to nAR to request context transfer.
   Even when the MN does not know if contexts need to be transferred,
   the MN sends the CTAR message. If an acknowledgement for this message



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   is needed, the MN sets the 'A' flag to 1; otherwise the MN does not
   expect an acknowledgement. This message may include a list of FPTs
   that require transfer.

   The MN may also send this message to pAR while still connected to
   pAR. In such a case, the MN includes the nAR's IP address; otherwise,
   if the message is sent to nAR, the pAR address is sent. The MN MUST
   set the sequence number to the same value for the message sent on
   both pAR and nAR so pAR can determine whether to use a cached
   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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Vers.|   Type  |V|A| Reserved  |            Length             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                   MN's Previous IP Address                    ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                   Previous (New) AR IP Address                ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Sequence Number                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    MN Authorization Token                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Requested Context Data Block (if present)          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Next Requested Context Data Block (if present)     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           ........                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Vers.               Version number of CTP protocol = 0x1

            Type                 CTAR = 0x1

            'V' flag             When set to '0', IPv6 addresses.
                                 When set to '1', IPv4 addresses.

            'A' bit              If set, the MN requests an
                                 acknowledgement.

            Reserved             Set to zero by the sender, ignored by
                                 the receiver.

            Length               Message length in units of bytes.

            MN's Previous IP Address Field contains either:
                                 IPv4 Address as defined in [RFC 791],



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


                                 4 octets.
                                 IPv6 Address as defined in [RFC 2373],
                                 16 octets.

            nAR / pAR IP Address Field contains either:
                                 IPv4 Address as defined in [RFC 791],
                                 4 octets.
                                 IPv6 Address as defined in [RFC 2373],
                                 16 octets.

            Sequence Number      A value used to identify requests and
                                 acknowledgements (see Section 3.2).

            Authorization Token  An unforgeable value calculated as
                                 discussed below.  This authorizes the
                                 receiver of CTAR to perform context
                                 transfer.

            Context Block        Variable length field defined in
                                 Section 2.4.

   If no context types are specified, all contexts for the MN are
   requested.

   The Authorization Token is calculated as:

      First (32, HMAC_SHA1
               (Key, (Previous IP address | Sequence Number| CTBs)))

   where Key is a shared secret between the MN and pAR, and CTBs is a
   concatenation of all the Context Data Blocks specifying the contexts
   to be transfered which are included in the CTAR message.

2.5.2 Context Transfer Activate Acknowledge (CTAA) Message

   This is an informative message sent by the receiver of CTAR to the MN
   to acknowledge a CTAR message. Acknowledgement is optional, depending
   on whether the MN requested it. This message may include a list of
   FPTs that were not transferred successfully.











Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Vers.|  Type   |V|  Reserved   |            Length             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~             Mobile Node's Previous IP address                 ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         FPT (if present)      | Status code   |  Reserved     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           ........                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Vers.                Version number of CTP protocol = 0x1

            Type                 CTAA = 0x2

            'V' flag             When set to '0', IPv6 addresses.
                                 When set to '1', IPv4 addresses.

            Reserved             Set to zero by the sender and ignored by
                                 the receiver.

            Length               Message length in units of bytes.

            MN's Previous IP Address Field contains either:
                                 IPv4 Address as defined in [RFC 791],
                                 4 octets.
                                 IPv6 Address as defined in [RFC 2373],
                                 16 octets.

            FPT                  16 bit unsigned integer, listing the FTP
                                 that was not successfully transferred.

            Status Code          An octet, containing failure reason.

2.5.3 Context Transfer Data (CTD) Message

   Sent by pAR to nAR, and includes feature data (CTP data). This
   message handles predictive as well as normal CT.  An acknowledgement
   flag, 'A', included in this message indicates whether a reply is
   required by pAR.










Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |Vers.|   Type  |V|A| Reserved  |          Length               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 Elapsed Time (in milliseconds)                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~             Mobile Node's Previous Care-of Address            ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^
    |             Algorithm           |          Key Length         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PCTD
    |                            Key                                | only
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ V
    ~                   First Context Data Block                    ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                    Next Context Data Block                    ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                           ........                            ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Vers.                Version number of CTP protocol = 0x1

            Type                 CTD =  0x3 (Context Transfer Data)
                                 PCTD = 0x4 (Predictive Context Transfer
                                             Data)

            'V' flag             When set to '0', IPv6 addresses.
                                 When set to '1', IPv4 addresses.

            'A' bit              When set, the pAR requests an
                                 acknowledgement.

            Length               Message length in units of bytes.

            Elapsed Time         The number of milliseconds since the
                                 transmission of the first CTD message for
                                 this MN.

            MN's Previous IP Address Field contains either:
                                 IPv4 Address as defined in [RFC 791],
                                 4 octets.
                                 IPv6 Address as defined in [RFC 2373],
                                 16 octets.

            Algorithm            Algorithm for carrying out the computation
                                 of the MN Authorization Token.  Currently
                                 only 1 algorithm is defined, HMAC_SHA1 = 1.




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


            Key Length           Length of key, in octets.

            Key                  Shared key between MN and AR for CTP.

            Context Data Block   The Context Data Block (see Section 2.4).

   When CTD is sent predictively, the supplied parameters including the
   algorithm, key length and the key itself, allowing nAR to compute a
   token locally and verify against the token present in the CTAR
   message.  This material is also sent if the pAR receives a CTD
   message with a null Authorization Token, indicating that the CT-Req
   message has been sent before the nAR received the CTAR message. CTD
   MUST be protected by IPsec, see Section 6.

   As described previously, the algorithm for carrying out the
   computation of the MN Authorization Token is HMAC_SHA1. The token
   authentication calculation algorithm is described in Section 2.5.1.

   For predictive handover, the pAR SHOULD keep track of the CTAR
   sequence number and cache the CTD message until receiving either a
   CTDR message for the MN's previous IP address from the pAR,
   indicating that the context transfer was successful, or until
   CT_MAX_HANDOVER_TIME expires. The nAR MAY send a CT-Req message
   containing the same sequence number if the predictive CTD message
   failed to arrive or the context was corrupted, In that case, the nAR
   sends a CT-Req message with a matching sequence number and pAR can
   resend the context.

2.5.4  Context Transfer Data Reply (CTDR) Message

   This message is sent by nAR to pAR depending on the value of the 'A'
   flag in CTD. Indicates success or failure.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Vers.|  Type   |V|S| Reserved  |          Length               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~             Mobile Node's Previous IP Address                 ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        FPT (if present)       | Status code   |  Reserved     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~ .......                                                       ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Vers.                Version number of CTP protocol = 0x1

            Type                 CTDR = 0x5 (Context Transfer Data)



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


            'V' flag             When set to '0', IPv6 addresses.
                                 When set to '1', IPv4 addresses.

            'S' bit              When set to one, this bit indicates
                                 that all feature contexts sent in CTD
                                 or PCTD were received successfully.

            Reserved             Set to zero by the sender and ignored by
                                 the receiver.

            Length               Message length in units of bytes.

            MN's Previous IP Address Field contains either:
                                 IPv4 Address as defined in [RFC 791],
                                 4 octets.
                                 IPv6 Address as defined in [RFC 2373],
                                 16 octets.

            Status Code          A context-specific return value,
                                 zero for success, nonzero when 'S' is
                                 not set to one.

            FPT                  16 bit unsigned integer, listing the FTP
                                 that is being acknowledged.

2.5.5  Context Transfer Cancel (CTC) Message

   If transferring a context cannot be completed in a timely fashion,
   then nAR may send CTC to pAR to cancel an ongoing CT process.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Vers.|  Type   |V|   Reserved  |            Length             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~             Mobile Node's Previous IP Address                 ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Vers.          Version number of CTP protocol = 0x1

            Type           CTC = 0x6 (Context Transfer Cancel)

            Length         Message length in units of bytes.

            'V' flag       When set to '0', IPv6 addresses.
                           When set to '1', IPv4 addresses.

            Reserved       Set to zero by the sender and ignored by



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


                           the receiver.

            MN's Previous IP Address Field contains either:
                           IPv4 Address as defined in [RFC 791],
                           4 octets.
                           IPv6 Address as defined in [RFC 2373],
                           16 octets.

2.5.6 Context Transfer Request (CT-Req) Message

   Sent by nAR to pAR to request start of context transfer. This message
   is sent as a response to CTAR message from the MN. The fields
   following the Previous IP address of the MN are included verbatim
   from the CTAR 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Vers.|  Type   |V|  Reserved   |            Length             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~             Mobile Node's Previous IP Address                 ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Sequence Number                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   MN Authorization Token                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~     Next Requested Context Data Block (if present)            ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                           ........                            ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Vers.               Version number of CTP protocol = 0x1

            Type                CTREQ = 0x7 (Context Transfer Request)

            'V' flag            When set to '0', IPv6 addresses.
                                When set to '1', IPv4 addresses.

            Reserved            Set to zero by the sender and ignored
                                by the receiver.

            Length              Message length in units of bytes.

            MN's Previous IP Address Field contains either:
                                 IPv4 Address as defined in [RFC 791],
                                 4 octets.
                                 IPv6 Address as defined in [RFC 2373],



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


                                 16 octets.

            Sequence Number      Copied from the CTAR message, allows the
                                 pAR to distinguish requests for previously
                                 sent context.

            MN's Authorization Token
                                 An unforgeable value calculated as
                                 discussed in Section 2.5.1.  This
                                 authorizes the receiver of CTAR to
                                 perform context transfer. Copied from
                                 CTAR.

            Context Data Request Block
                                 A request block for context data, see
                                 Section 2.4.

   The sequence number is used by pAR to correlate a request for
   previously transmitted context. In predictive transfer, if the MN
   sends CTAR prior to handover, pAR pushes context to nAR using CTD. If
   the CTD fails, the nAR will send CT-Req with the same sequence
   number, allowing the pAR to distinguish which context to resend. pAR
   drops the context after CTP_MAX_TRANSFER_TIME. The sequence number is
   not used in reactive transfer.

   For predictive transfer the pAR sends the keying material and other
   information necessary to calculate the Authorization Token, with no
   CT-Req message necessary. For reactive transfer, if the nAR receives
   a context transfer trigger but has not yet received the CTAR message
   with the authorization token, the Authorization Token field in CT-Req
   is set to zero. The pAR interprets this as an indication to include
   the keying material and other information necessary to calculate the
   Authorization Token, and includes this material into the CTD message
   as if the message were being sent due to predictive transfer. This
   provides nAR with the information it needs to calculate the
   authorization token when the MN sends CTAR.

3. Transport

3.1 Inter-Router Transport

   Since the types of access networks in which CTP might be useful are
   not today deployed or, if they have been deployed, have not been
   extensively measured, it is difficult to know whether congestion will
   be a problem for CTP. Part of the research task in preparing CTP for
   consideration as a candidate for possible standardization is to
   quantify this issue. However, in order to avoid potential
   interference with production applications should a prototype CTP



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   deployment involve running over the public Internet, it seems prudent
   to recommend a default transport protocol that accommodates
   congestion. In addition, since the feature context information has a
   definite lifetime, the transport protocol must accommodate flexible
   retransmission, so stale contexts that are held up by congestion are
   dropped. Finally, because the amount of context data can be
   arbitrarily large, the transport protocol should not be limited to a
   single packet, or require implementing a custom fragmentation
   protocol.

   These considerations argue that implementations of CTP MUST support
   and prototype deployments of CTP SHOULD use Stream Control Transport
   Protocol (SCTP) [SCTP] for the transport protocol on the inter-router
   interface, especially if deployment over the public Internet is
   contemplated. SCTP supports congestion control, fragmentation, and
   partial retransmission based on a programmable retransmission timer.
   SCTP also supports many advanced and complex features, such as
   multiple streams and multiple IP addresses for failover, that are not
   necessary for experimental implementation and prototype deployment of
   CTP. In this specification, the use of such SCTP features is not
   recommended at this time.

   The SCTP Payload Data Chunk carries the context transfer protocol
   messages. The User Data part of each SCTP message contains an
   appropriate context transfer protocol message defined in this
   document. The messages sent using SCTP are CTD (Section 2.5.3), CTDR
   (Section 2.5.4), CTC (Section 2.5.5) and CT-Req (Section 2.5.6). In
   general, each SCTP message can carry feature contexts belonging to
   any MN. If the SCTP checksum calculation fails, the nAR returns the
   BAD_CHECKSUM error code in a CTDR message.

   A single stream is used for context transfer without in-sequence
   delivery of SCTP messages. Each message, unless fragmented,
   corresponds to a single MN's feature context collection. A single
   stream provides simplicity. Use of multiple streams to prevent head-
   of-line blocking is for future study. Having unordered delivery
   allows the receiver to not block for in-sequence delivery of messages
   that belong to different MNs. The Payload Protocol Identifier in the
   SCTP header is 'CTP'. Inter-router CTP uses the Seamoby SCTP port
   [IANA].

   Timeliness of the context transfer information SHOULD be accommodated
   by setting the SCTP maximum retransmission value to
   CT_MAX_TRANSFER_TIME in order to accommodate the maximum acceptable
   handover delay time, and the AR SHOULD be configured with
   CT_MAX_TRANSFER_TIME to accommodate the particular wireless link
   technology and local wireless propagation conditions. SCTP message
   bundling SHOULD be turned off in order to reduce any extra delay in



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   sending messages. Within CTP, the nAR SHOULD estimate the retransmit
   timer from the receipt of the first fragment of a CTP message and
   avoid processing any IP traffic from the MN until either context
   transfer is complete or the estimated retransmit timer expires. If
   both routers support PR-SCTP [PR-SCTP], then PR-SCTP SHOULD be used.
   PR-SCTP modifies the lifetime parameter of the Send() operation
   defined in Section 10.1 E in [SCTP] so that it applies to retransmits
   as well as transmits; that is, in PR-SCTP if the lifetime expires and
   the data chunk has not been acknowledged, the transmitter stops
   retransmitting, whereas in the base protocol the data would be
   retransmitted until acknowledged or the connection timed out.

   The format of Payload Data Chunk taken from [SCTP] is shown in the
   following diagram.


       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 = 0    | Reserved|U|B|E|    Length                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                              TSN                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Stream Identifier S      |   Stream Sequence Number n    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Payload Protocol Identifier                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                 User Data (seq n of Stream S)                 ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


            'U' bit      The Unordered bit.  MUST be set to 1 (one).
            'B' bit      The Beginning fragment bit.  See [SCTP].

            'E' bit      The Ending fragment bit.  See [SCTP].

            TSN          Transmission Sequence Number.  See [SCTP].

            Stream Identifier S
                         Identifies the context transfer protocol stream.

            Stream Sequence Number n
                         Since the 'U' bit is set to one, the
                         receiver ignores this number.  See [SCTP].

            Payload Protocol Identifier
                         Set to 'CTP' (see [IANA]).




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


            User Data    Contains the context transfer protocol messages.


   If a CTP deployment will never run over the public Internet, and it
   is known that congestion is not a problem in the access network,
   alternative transport protocols MAY be appropriate vehicles for
   experimentation. An example is piggybacking CTP messages on top of
   handover signaling for routing, such as provided by FMIPv6 in ICMP
   [FMIPv6]. Implementations of CTP MAY support ICMP for such purposes.
   If such piggybacking is used, an experimental message extension for
   the protocol on which CTP is piggybacking MUST be designed. Direct
   deployment on top of a transport protocol for experimental purposes
   is also possible, in that case, the researcher MUST be careful to
   accommodate good Internet transport protocol engineering practices,
   including using retransmits with exponential backoff.



3.2 MN-AR Transport

   The MN-AR interface MUST implement and SHOULD use ICMP for transport
   of the CTAR and CTAA messages. Because ICMP contains no provisions
   for retransmitting packets if signaling is lost, the CTP protocol
   incorporates provisions for improving transport performance on the
   MN-AR interface. The MN and AR SHOULD limit the number of context
   data block identifiers included in the CTAR and CTAA messages so that
   the message will fit into a single packet, since ICMP has no
   provision for fragmentation above the IP level. The ICMP message
   format for CTP messages is as follows:

       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      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            Reserved                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Message...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - -

      IP Fields:

            Source Address      An IP address assigned to the sending
                                interface.

            Destination Address
                                An IP address assigned to the receiving
                                interface.



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


            Hop Limit           255

      ICMP Fields:

            Type           Seamoby Type (To be assigned by IANA,
                           for IPv4 and IPv6, see [IANA])

            Code           1

            Checksum       The ICMP checksum.

            Reserved       Set to zero by the sender and ignored by
                           the receiver.

            Message        The body of the CTAR or CTAA message.

      CTAR messages for which a response is requested but which fail to
      elicit a response are retransmitted.  The initial retransmission
      occurs after a CTP_REQUEST_RETRY wait period. Retransmissions MUST
      be made with exponentially increasing wait intervals (doubling the
      wait each time).  CTAR messages should be retransmitted until
      either a response (which might be an error) has been obtained, or
      until CTP_RETRY_MAX seconds after the initial transmission.

      MNs SHOULD generate the sequence number in the CTAR message
      randomly, and, for predictive transfer, MUST use the same sequence
      number in a CTAR to the nAR as for the pAR. An AR MUST ignore the
      CTAR if it has already received one with the same sequence number
      and MN IP address.

      Implementations MAY, for research purposes, try other transport
      protocols. Examples are the definition of a Mobile IPv6 Mobility
      Header [MIPv6] for use with the FMIPv6 Fast Binding Update
      [FMIPv6] to allow bundling of both routing change and context
      transfer signaling from the MN to AR, or definition of a UDP
      protocol instead of ICMP. If such implementations are done, they
      should abide carefully by good Internet transport engineering
      practices and be used for prototype and demonstration purposes
      only. Deployment on large scale networks should be avoided until
      the transport characteristics are well understood.

4. Error Codes and Constants

      Error Code      Section    Value        Meaning
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      BAD_CHECKSUM    3.1        0x01         Error code if the
                                              SCTP checksum fails.




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


      Constant             Section    Default Value  Meaning
      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      CT_REQUEST_RATE       6.3       10 requests/   Maximum number of
                                         sec.        CTAR messages before
                                                     AR institutes rate
                                                     limiting.

      CT_MAX_TRANSFER_TIME  3.1       200 ms         Maximum amount of time
                                                     pAR should wait before
                                                     aborting the transfer.

      CT_REQUEST_RETRY      3.2       2 seconds       Wait interval before
                                                      initial retransmit
                                                      on MN-AR interface.

      CT_RETRY_MAX          3.2     15 seconds        Give up retrying
                                                      on MN-AR interface.

5. Examples and Signaling Flows

5.1 Network controlled, Initiated by pAR, Predictive

              MN                    nAR                     pAR
              |                      |                       |
         T    |                      |                  CT trigger
         I    |                      |                       |
         M    |                      |<------- CTD ----------|
         E    |--------CTAR--------->|                       |
         :    |                      |                       |
         |    |                      |-------- CTDR -------->|
         V    |                      |                       |
              |                      |                       |

      in 0 5.2 Network controlled, initiated by nAR, Reactive

              MN                    nAR                     pAR
              |                      |                       |
         T    |                 CT trigger                   |
         I    |                      |                       |
         M    |                      |--------- CT-Req ----->|
         E    |                      |                       |
         :    |                      |<------- CTD ----------|
         |    |                      |                       |
         V    |--------CTAR--------->|                       |
              |                      |----- CTDR (opt) ----->|
              |                      |                       |




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


5.3 Mobile controlled, Predictive New L2 up/old L2 down

   CTAR request to nAR

              MN                    nAR                     pAR
              |                      |                       |
        new L2 link up               |                       |
              |                      |                       |
         CT trigger                  |                       |
              |                      |                       |
         T    |--------CTAR  ------->|                       |
         I    |                      |-------- CT-Req ------>|
         M    |                      |                       |
         E    |                      |<-------- CTD ---------|
         :    |                      |                       |
         |    |                      |                       |
         V    |                      |                       |
              |                      |                       |

   It is for future study whether the nAR sends the MN a CTAR reject if
   CT is not supported.

6. Security Considerations

   At this time, the threats to IP handover in general and context
   transfer in particular are incompletely understood, particularly on
   the MN to AR link, and mechanisms for countering them are not well
   defined. Part of the experimental task in preparing CTP for eventual
   standards track will be to better characterize threats to context
   transfer and design specific mechanisms to counter them. This section
   provides some general guidelines about security based on discussions
   among the Design Team and Working Group members.

6.1. Threats

   The Context Transfer Protocol transfers state between access routers.
   If the MNs are not authenticated and authorized before moving on the
   network, there is a potential for DoS attacks to shift state between
   ARs, causing network disruptions.

   Additionally, DoS attacks can be launched from MNs towards the access
   routers by requesting multiple context transfers and then
   disappearing.  Finally, a rogue access router could flood mobile
   nodes with packets, attempting DoS attacks, and issue bogus context
   transfer requests to surrounding routers.

6.2. Access Router Considerations




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   The CTP interrouter interface relies on IETF standardized security
   mechanisms for protecting traffic between access routers, as opposed
   to creating application security mechanisms. IPsec MUST be supported
   between access routers.

   In order to avoid the introduction of additional latency due to the
   need for establishment of a secure channel between the context
   transfer peers (ARs), the two ARs SHOULD establish such a secure
   channel in advance. The two access routers need to engage in a key
   exchange mechanisms such as IKE [RFC2409], establish IPSec SAs,
   defining the keys, algorithms and IPSec protocols (such as ESP) in
   anticipation for any upcoming context transfer. This will save time
   during handovers that require secure transfer. Such SAs can be
   maintained and used for all upcoming context transfers between the
   two ARs.  Security should be negotiated prior to the sending of
   context.

   Access Routers MUST implement IPsec ESP [ESP] in transport mode with
   non-null encryption and authentication algorithms to provide per-
   packet authentication, integrity protection and confidentiality, and
   MUST implement the replay protection mechanisms of IPsec. In those
   scenarios where IP layer protection is needed, ESP in tunnel mode
   SHOULD be used. Non-null encryption should be used when using IPSec
   ESP. Strong security on the inter-router interface is required to
   protect against attacks by rogue routers, and to ensure
   confidentiality on the context transfer authorization key in
   predicative transfer.

6.3 Mobile Node Considerations

   The CTAR message requires the MN and AR to possess a shared secret
   key in order to calculate the authorization token. Validation of this
   token MUST precede context transfer or installation of context for
   the MN, removing the risk that an attacker could cause an
   unauthorized transfer. How the shared key is established is out of
   scope of the current specification. If both the MN and AR know
   certified public keys of the other party, Diffie-Helman can be used
   to generate a shared secret [RFC2631]. If an AAA protocol of some
   sort is run for network entry, the shared key can be established
   using that protocol [PerkCal04].

   If predictive context transfer is used, the shared key for
   calculating the authorization token is transferred between ARs. A
   transfer of confidential material of this sort poses certain security
   risks, even if the actual transfer itself is confidential and
   authenticated, as is the case for inter-router CTP. The more entities
   know the key, the more likely a compromise may occur. In order to
   mitigate this risk, nAR MUST discard the key immediately after using



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   it to validate the authorization token. The MN MUST establish a new
   key with the AR for future CTP transactions. The MN and AR SHOULD
   exercise care in using a key established for other purposes for also
   authorizing context transfer. It is RECOMMENDED that a separate key
   be established for context transfer authorization.

   Replay protection on the MN-AR protocol is provided by limiting the
   time period in which context is maintained. For predictive transfer,
   the pAR receives a CTAR message with a sequence number, transfers the
   context, then drops the context immediately upon completion of the
   transfer, along with the authorization token key. For reactive
   transfer, the nAR receives the CTAR, requests the context along with
   the sequence number and authorization token, allowing the pAR to
   check whether the transfer is authorized. The pAR drops the context
   and authorization token key after the transfer has been completed.
   The pAR and nAR ignore any requests containing the same MN IP address
   during the transfer process. After the key has been dropped, any
   attempt at replay will fail because the authorization token fails to
   validate. The AR MUST NOT reuse the key for other MNs.

   DoS attacks on the MN-AR interface can be limited by having the AR
   rate limit the number of CTAR messages it processes. The AR SHOULD
   limit the number of CTAR messages to CT_REQUEST_RATE. If the request
   exceeds this rate, the AR SHOULD randomly drop messages until the
   rate is established. The actual rate SHOULD be configured on the AR
   to match the maximum number of handovers that the access network is
   expected to support.

7. IANA Considerations

   Instructions for IANA allocations are included in [IANA].

8. Acknowledgements & Contributors

   This document is the result of a design team formed by the Working
   Group chairs of the SeaMoby working group. The team included John
   Loughney, Madjid Nakhjiri, Rajeev Koodli and Charles Perkins.

   Contributors to the Context Transfer Protocol review are Basavaraj
   Patil, Pekka Savola, and Antti Tuominen.

   The working group chairs are Pat Calhoun and James Kempf, whose
   comments have been very helpful during the creation of this
   specification.

   The authors would also like to thank Julien Bournelle, Vijay
   Devarapalli, Dan Forsberg, Xiaoming Fu, Michael Georgiades, Yusuf




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   Motiwala, Phil Neumiller, Hesham Soliman and Lucian Suciu for their
   help and suggestions with this document.

9. References

9.1 Normative References


   [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
             BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.


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


   [RFC2434] T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
             Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
             1998.


   [RFC2409] D. Harkins, D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)",
             RFC 2409, November 1998.


   [ESP]     Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
             Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.


   [SCTP]    Stewert, R., et. al., "Stream Control Transmission
             Protocol", RFC 2960, October, 2000.


   [PR-SCTP] Stewert, R., et. al., "SCTP Partial Reliability Extension",
             Internet Engineering Task Force. Work in Progress.


   [CARD]    Liebisch, M., and Singh, A., editors, et. al., "Candidate
             Access Router Discovery", Internet Engineering Task Force.
             Work in Progress.


   [IANA]    Kempf, J., "Instructions for Seamoby Experimental Protocol
             IANA Allocations", Internet Engineering Task Force. Work in
             Progress.


9.2 Non-Normative References



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


[CTHC]    R. Koodli et al., "Context Relocation for Seamless Header
          Compression in IP Networks", Internet Draft, Internet
          Engineering Task Force, Work in Progress.


[FMIPv6]  R. Koodli (Ed),  "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", Internet
          Engineering Task Force. Work in Progress.


[LLMIP]   K. El Malki et. al, "Low Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4",
          Internet Engineering Task Force. Work in Progress.


[RFC3374] J. Kempf et al., "Problem Description: Reasons For Performing
          Context Transfers Between Nodes in an IP Access Network", RFC
          3374, May 2001.


[RFC2401] S. Kent, R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet
          Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.


[TERM]    J. Manner, M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", Internet
          Engineering Task Force, Work in Progress.


[RFC2631] E. Rescorla, "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method", RFC 2631,
          June, 1999.


[PerkCal04]C. Perkins and P. Calhoun, "AAA Registration Keys for Mobile
          IPv4", Internet Engineering Task Force, Work in Progress.


[MIPv6]   D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
          IPv6", Internet Engineering Task Force, Work in Progress.


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


[RFC2461] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
          for IP Version 6 (IPv6)," RFC 2461, December, 1998.


[RFC2462] S. Thompson, and T. Narten, "IPv6 Address Autoconfiguration,"
          RFC 2462, December, 1998.



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


[RFC3095] C. Borman, ed., "RObust Header Compression (ROHC)", RFC 3095,
          July, 2001.


[BT]      IEEE, "IEEE Standard for information technology - Telecommuni-
          cation and information exchange between systems - LAN/MAN -
          Part 15.1: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
          Layer (PHY) specifications for Wireless Personal Area Networks
          (WPANs)", IEEE Standard 802.15.1, 2002.

Appendix A. Timing and Trigger Considerations

   Basic Mobile IP handover signaling can introduce disruptions to the
   services running on top of Mobile IP, which may introduce unwanted
   latencies that practically prohibit its use for certain types of
   services. Mobile IP latency and packet loss is being optimized through
   several alternative procedures, such as Fast Mobile IP [FMIPv6] and
   Low Latency Mobile IP [LLMIP].

   Feature re-establishment through context transfer should contribute
   zero (optimally) or minimal extra disruption of services in
   conjunction to handovers. This means that the timing of context
   transfer SHOULD be carefully aligned with basic Mobile IP handover
   events, and with optimized Mobile IP handover signaling mechanisms,
   as those protocols become available.

   Furthermore, some of those optimized mobile IP handover mechanisms
   may provide more flexibility in choosing the timing and order for
   transfer of various context information.

Appendix B. Multicast Listener Context Transfer

   In the past, credible proposals have been made in the Seamoby Working
   Group and elsewhere for using context transfer to speed handover of
   authentication, authorization, and accounting context, distributed
   firewall context, PPP context, and header compression context.
   Because the Working Group was not chartered to develop context
   profile definitions for specific applications, none of the drafts
   submitted to Seamoby were accepted as Working Group items. At this
   time, work continues to develop a context profile definition for RFC
   3095 header compression context [RFC3095] and to characterize the
   performance gains obtainable by using header compression, but the
   work is not yet complete. In addition, there are several commercial
   wireless products that reportedly use non-standard, non-interoperable
   context transfer protocols, though none is as yet widely deployed.

   As a consequence, it is difficult at this time to point to a solid
   example of how context transfer could result in a commercially



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   viable, widely deployable, interoperable benefit for wireless
   networks. This is one reason why CTP is being proposed as an
   Experimental protocol, rather than Standards Track. However, it
   nevertheless seems valuable to have a simple example that shows
   how handover could benefit from using CTP. The example we consider
   here is transferring IPv6 MLD state [RFC2710]. MLD state is a
   particularly good example because every IPv6 node must perform at
   least one MLD messaging sequence on the wireless link to establish
   itself as an MLD listener prior to performing router discovery
   [RFC2461] or duplicate address detection [RFC2462] or before
   sending/receiving any application-specific traffic (including Mobile
   IP handover signaling, if any). The node must subscribe to the
   Solicited Node Multicast Address as soon as it comes up on the link.
   Any application-specific multicast addresses must be re-established
   as well. Context transfer can significantly speed up re-establishing
   multicast state by allowing the nAR to initialize MLD for a node that
   just completed handover without any MLD signaling on the new
   wireless link. The same approach could be used for transferring
   multicast context in IPv4.

   An approximate quantitative estimate for the amount of savings in
   handover time can be obtained as follows. MLD messages are 24 bytes,
   to which the headers must be added, because there is no header
   compression on the new link, with IPv6 header being 40 bytes, and a
   required Router Alert Hop-by-Hop option being 8 bytes including pad-
   ding. The total MLD message size is 72 bytes per subscribed multicast
   address. RFC 2710 recommends that nodes send 2 to 3 MLD Report
   messages per address subscription, since the Report message is
   unacknowledged. Assuming 2 MLD messages sent for a subscribed address,
   the MN would need to send 144 bytes per address subscription. If MLD
   messages are sent for both the All Nodes Multicast address and the
   Solicited Node Multicast address for the node's link local address, a
   total of 288 bytes are required when the node hands over to the new
   link. Note that some implementations of IPv6 optimize by not sending
   an MLD message for the All Nodes Multicast Address, since the router
   can infer that at least one node is on the link (itself) when it
   comes up and always will be, but for purposes of this calculation, we
   assume that the IPv6 implementation is conformant and that the
   message is sent. The amount of time required for MLD signaling will,
   of course, depend on the per node available wireless link bandwidth,
   but some representative numbers can be obtained by assuming bandwidths
   of 20 kbps or 100 kbps. With these two bit rates, the savings from not
   having to perform the pre-router discovery messages are 115 msec. and
   23 msec., respectively. If any application-specific multicast
   addresses are subscribed, the amount of time saved could be
   substantially more.

   This example might seem a bit contrived because MLD isn't used in the
   3G cellular protocols and wireless local area network protocols



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   typically have enough bandwidth, if radio propagation conditions are
   optimal, so sending a single MLD message might not be viewed as such
   a performance burden. An example of a wireless protocol where MLD
   context transfer might be useful is IEEE 802.15.1 (Bluetooth)[BT].
   IEEE 802.15.1 has two IP "profiles": one with and one without PPP.
   The profile without PPP would use MLD. The 802.15.1 protocol has a
   maximum bandwidth of about 800 kbps, shared between all nodes on the
   link, so a host on a moderately loaded 802.15.1 access point could
   experience the kind of bandwidth described in the previous paragraph.
   In addition 802.15.1 handover times typically run upwards of a second
   or more because the host must resynchronize its frequency hopping
   pattern with the access point, so anything the IP layer could do to
   alleviate further delay would be beneficial.

   The context-specific data field for MLD context transfer included in
   the CTP Context Data Block message for a single IPv6 multicast
   address has the following format:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +             Subnet Prefix on nAR Wireless Interface           +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +               Subscribed IPv6 Multicast Address               +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Subnet Prefix on nAR Wireless Interface field contains a subnet
   prefix that identifies the interface on which multicast routing
   should be established. The Subscribed IPv6 Multicast Address field
   contains the multicast address for which multicast routing should be
   established.

   The pAR sends one MLD context block per subscribed IPv6 multicast
   address.

   No changes are required in the MLD state machine.

   Upon receipt of a CTP Context Data Block for MLD, the state machine
   takes the following actions:




Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


    - If the router is in the No Listeners present state on the wireless
      interface on which the Subnet Prefix field in the Context Data
      Block is advertised, it transitions into the Listeners Present
      state for the Subscribed IPv6 Multicast Address field in the
      Context Data Block. This transition is exactly the same as if the
      router had received a Report message.

    - If the router is in the Listeners present state on that interface,
      it remains in that state but restarts the timer, as if it had
      received a Report message.

   If more than one MLD router is on the link, a router receiving an MLD
   Context Data Block SHOULD send the block to the other routers on the
   link. If wireless bandwidth is not an issue, the router MAY instead
   send a proxy MLD Report message on the wireless interface that
   advertises the Subnet Prefix field from the Context Data Block. Since
   MLD routers do not keep track of which nodes are listening to munticast
   addresses, only whether a particular multicast address is being
   listened to, proxying the subscription should cause no difficulty.

Authors' Addresses

   Rajeev Koodli
   Nokia Research Center
   313 Fairchild Drive
   Mountain View, California 94043
   USA
   Rajeev.koodli@nokia.com


   John Loughney
   Nokia
   Itdmerenkatu 11-13
   00180 Espoo
   Finland
   john.loughney@nokia.com

   Madjid F. Nakhjiri
   Motorola Labs
   1031 East Algonquin Rd., Room 2240
   Schaumburg, IL, 60196
   USA
   madjid.nakhjiri@motorola.com



   Charles E. Perkins
   Nokia Research Center



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                                            April 14, 2004


   313 Fairchild Drive
   Mountain View, California 94043
   USA
   charliep@iprg.nokia.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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 AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR-
   MATION 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 specifica-
   tion 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 currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



Loughney et al.         expires October 13, 2004               [Page 31]


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