[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-mip4-n...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [IPR]

EXPERIMENTAL

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Makela
Request for Comments: 6521                       Aalto University/Comnet
Category: Experimental                                       J. Korhonen
ISSN: 2070-1721                                   Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                           February 2012


  Home Agent-Assisted Route Optimization between Mobile IPv4 Networks

Abstract

   This document describes a home agent-assisted route optimization
   functionality for the IPv4 Network Mobility Protocol.  The function
   is designed to facilitate optimal routing in cases where all nodes
   are connected to a single home agent; thus, the use case is route
   optimization within a single organization or similar entity.  The
   functionality enables the discovery of eligible peer nodes (based on
   information received from the home agent) and their network prefixes,
   and the establishment of a direct tunnel between such nodes.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for
   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6521.














Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction and Motivations ....................................3
   2. Terms and Definitions ...........................................6
   3. Mobile IPv4 Route Optimization between Mobile Networks ..........8
      3.1. Maintaining Route Optimization Information .................9
           3.1.1. Advertising Route-Optimizable Prefixes ..............9
           3.1.2. Route Optimization Cache ...........................11
      3.2. Return Routability Procedure ..............................13
           3.2.1. Router Keys ........................................15
           3.2.2. Nonces .............................................15
           3.2.3. Updating Router Keys and Nonces ....................16
      3.3. Mobile-Correspondent Router Operations ....................16
           3.3.1. Triggering Route Optimization ......................17
           3.3.2. Mobile Router Routing Tables .......................17
           3.3.3. Inter-Mobile Router Registration ...................18
           3.3.4. Inter-Mobile Router Tunnels ........................20
           3.3.5. Constructing Route-Optimized Packets ...............21
           3.3.6. Handovers and Mobile Routers Leaving Network .......21
      3.4. Convergence and Synchronization Issues ....................22
   4. Data Compression Schemes .......................................23
      4.1. Prefix Compression ........................................23
      4.2. Realm Compression .........................................25
           4.2.1. Encoding of Compressed Realms ......................25
           4.2.2. Searching Algorithm ................................27
           4.2.3. Encoding Example ...................................27










Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   5. New Mobile IPv4 Messages and Extensions ........................30
      5.1. Mobile Router Route Optimization Capability Extension .....30
      5.2. Route Optimization Reply ..................................31
      5.3. Mobile-Correspondent Authentication Extension .............32
      5.4. Care-of Address Extension .................................33
      5.5. Route Optimization Prefix Advertisement Extension .........34
      5.6. Home Test Init Message ....................................36
      5.7. Care-of Test Init Message .................................36
      5.8. Home Test Message .........................................37
      5.9. Care-of Test Message ......................................38
   6. Special Considerations .........................................39
      6.1. NATs and Stateful Firewalls ...............................39
      6.2. Handling of Concurrent Handovers ..........................40
      6.3. Foreign Agents ............................................40
      6.4. Multiple Home Agents ......................................40
      6.5. Mutualness of Route Optimization ..........................41
      6.6. Extensibility .............................................42
      6.7. Load Balancing ............................................43
   7. Scalability ....................................................43
   8. Example Signaling Scenarios ....................................44
      8.1. Registration Request ......................................44
      8.2. Route Optimization with Return Routability ................45
      8.3. Handovers .................................................46
   9. Protocol Constants .............................................48
   10. IANA Considerations ...........................................48
   11. Security Considerations .......................................50
      11.1. Return Routability .......................................50
      11.2. Trust Relationships ......................................51
   12. Acknowledgements ..............................................51
   13. References ....................................................51
      13.1. Normative References .....................................51
      13.2. Informative References ...................................52

1.  Introduction and Motivations

   Traditionally, there has been no method for route optimization in
   Mobile IPv4 [RFC5944] apart from an early attempt [MIP-RO].  Unlike
   Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275], where route optimization has been included
   from the start, with Mobile IPv4, route optimization hasn't been
   addressed in a generalized scope.

   Even though general route optimization may not be of interest in the
   scope of IPv4, there are still specific applications for route
   optimization in Mobile IPv4.  This document proposes a method to
   optimize routes between networks behind Mobile Routers (MRs), as
   defined by Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC5177].  Although NAT and the
   pending shortage of IPv4 addresses make widespread deployment of end-
   to-end route optimization infeasible, using route optimization from



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   MR to MR is still a practical scenario.  Note that the method
   specified in this document is only for route optimization between
   MRs; any network prefix not advertised by an MR would still be routed
   via the home agent, although an MR could advertise very large address
   spaces, e.g., by acting as an Internet gateway.

   A particular use case concerns setting up redundant yet economical
   enterprise networks.  Recently, a trend has emerged where customers
   prefer to maintain connectivity via multiple service providers.
   Reasons include redundancy, reliability, and availability issues.
   These kinds of multihoming scenarios have traditionally been solved
   by using such technologies as multihoming BGP.  However, a more
   lightweight and economical solution is desirable.

   From a service provider perspective, a common topology for an
   enterprise customer network consists of one to several sites
   (typically headquarters and various branch offices).  These sites are
   typically connected via various Layer 2 technologies (ATM or Frame
   Relay Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVCs)), MPLS VPNs, or Layer 3
   site-to-site VPNs.  With a Service Level Agreement (SLA), a customer
   can obtain very reliable and well-supported intranet connectivity.
   However, compared to the cost of "consumer-grade" broadband Internet
   access, the SLA-guaranteed version can be considered very expensive.
   These consumer-grade options, however, are not a reliable approach
   for mission-critical applications.

   Mobile IP, especially MRs, can be used to improve reliability of
   connectivity even when implemented over consumer-grade Internet
   access.  The customer becomes a client for a virtual service
   provider, which does not take part in the actual access technology.
   The service provider has a backend system and an IP address pool that
   it distributes to customers.  Access is provided by multiple,
   independent, possibly consumer-grade ISPs, with Mobile IP providing
   seamless handovers if service from a specific ISP fails.  The
   drawback of this solution is that it creates a star topology; all
   Mobile IP tunnels end up at the service provider-hosted home agent,
   causing a heavy load at the backend.  Route optimization between
   mobile networks addresses this issue, by taking the network load off
   of the home agent and the backend.












Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   An example network is pictured below:

                       +----------------------------+
                       |  Virtual Operator Backend  |
                       +------------+         +-----+
                       | Home Agent |         | AAA |
                       +------------+---------+-----+
                                    |
                                  .--.
                                _(.   `)
                              _(   ISP `)_
                             (   Peering  `)
                            ( `  . Point )  )
                             `--(_______)--'
                       ____ /     |         \
                      /           |          \
                   .--.         .--.         .--.
                 _(    `.     _(    `.     _(    `.
                (  ISP A )   (  ISP B )   (  ISP C )
               ( `  .  )  ) ( `  .  )  ) ( `  .  )  )
                `--(___.-'   `--(___.-'   `--(___.-'
                    |     ______/    \       /
                    |    /            \     /
                    |   /              \   /
                  +----+               +----+
                  |MR A|               |MR B|
                  +----+               +----+
                    |                    |
                   .--.                 .--.
                 _(    `.             _(    `.
                ( Site A )           ( Site B )
               ( `  .  )  )         ( `  .  )  )
                `--(___.-'           `--(___.-'

            Virtual Service Provider Architecture Using NEMOv4

   In this example case, the organization network consists of two sites
   that are connected via two ISPs for redundancy reasons.  Mobile IP
   allows fast handovers without the problems of multihoming and BGP
   peering between each individual ISP and the organization.  The
   traffic, however, takes a non-optimal route through the virtual
   operator backend.

   Route optimization addresses this issue, allowing traffic between
   Sites A and B to flow directly through ISP B's network, or in case of
   a link failure, via the ISP peering point (such as the Metropolitan
   Area Ethernet (MAE), e.g., MAE-West).  The backend will not suffer
   from heavy loads.



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   The specification in this document is meant to be Experimental, with
   the primary design goal of keeping the load on the backend to a
   minimum.  Additional design goals include extensibility to a more
   generalized scope, such as not requiring all MRs to be homed on the
   same home agent.  Experiences are mostly sought regarding
   applicability to real-world operations, and protocol-specific issues
   such as signaling scalability, interworking with other Mobile IP
   extensions not specifically addressed in this document, and behavior
   of end-user applications over route-optimized paths.

   The aforementioned use case is the original application.  Moving this
   specification to Standards Track should be considered after enough
   deployment experience has been gathered.  Besides the aforementioned
   issues, additional elements that might require refinement based on
   real-world experiences are delivery of information on networks
   managed by peer MRs; conducting MR <-> MR authentication; reaction
   to, and recovery methods for, connectivity breakdowns and other
   break-before-make topology changes; keepalive timer intervals;
   formats of signaling extensions; behavior in NAT/firewalled
   environments; and the prefix and realm compression algorithms.

2.  Terms and Definitions

   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].

   Care-of Address (CoA)

      RFC 5944 [RFC5944] defines a care-of address as the termination
      point of a tunnel toward a mobile node, for datagrams forwarded to
      the mobile node while it is away from home.  The protocol can use
      two different types of CoA: a "foreign agent care-of address",
      which is an address of a foreign agent with which the mobile node
      is registered, and a "co-located care-of address", which is an
      externally obtained local address that the mobile node has
      associated with one of its own network interfaces.  However, in
      the case of Network Mobility, foreign agents are not used, so no
      foreign CoAs are used either.

   Correspondent Router (CR)

      RFC 5944 [RFC5944] defines a correspondent node as a peer with
      which a mobile node is communicating.  A CR is a peer MR that MAY
      also represent one or more entire networks.






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Home Address (HoA)

      RFC 5944 [RFC5944] defines a home address as an IP address that is
      assigned for an extended period of time to a mobile node.  It
      remains unchanged regardless of where the node is attached to the
      Internet.

   Home Agent (HA)

      RFC 5944 [RFC5944] defines a home agent as a router on a mobile
      node's home network that tunnels datagrams for delivery to the
      mobile node when it is away from home and maintains current
      location information for the mobile node.  For this application,
      the "home network" sees limited usage.

   Host Network Prefix

      A host network prefix is a network prefix with a mask of /32,
      e.g., 192.0.2.254/32, consisting of a single host.

   Mobility Binding

      RFC 5944 [RFC5944] defines Mobility Binding as the association of
      an HoA with a CoA, along with the lifetime remaining for that
      association.

   Mobile Network Prefix

      RFC 5177 [RFC5177] defines a mobile network prefix as the network
      prefix of the subnet delegated to an MR as the mobile network.

   Mobile Router (MR)

      RFC 5177 [RFC5177] and RFC 5944 [RFC5944] define a mobile router
      as a mobile node that can be a router that is responsible for the
      mobility of one or more entire networks moving together, perhaps
      on an airplane, a ship, a train, an automobile, a bicycle, or a
      kayak.

   Route Optimization Cache

      A Route Optimization Cache is defined as a data structure,
      maintained by MRs, containing possible destinations for route
      optimization.  The cache contains information (HoAs) on potential
      CRs and their associated mobile networks.






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Return Routability (RR)

      Return routability is defined as a procedure to bind an MR's HoA
      to a CoA on a CR with a degree of trust.

   | (Concatenation)

      Some formulas in this specification use the symbol "|" to indicate
      bytewise concatenation, as in A | B.  This concatenation requires
      that all of the octets of the datum A appear first in the result,
      followed by all of the octets of the datum B.

   First (size, input)

      Some formulas in this specification use a functional form "First
      (size, input)" to indicate truncation of the "input" data so that
      only the first "size" bits remain to be used.

3.  Mobile IPv4 Route Optimization between Mobile Networks

   This section describes the changed functionality of the HA and the MR
   compared to the base NEMOv4 operation defined in [RFC5177].  The
   basic premise is still the same; MRs, when registering with the HA,
   may inform the HA of the mobile network prefixes they are managing
   (explicit mode), or the HA already knows the prefix assignments.
   However, instead of prefix <-> MR mapping information only remaining
   on the HA and the single MR, this information will now be distributed
   to the other MRs as well.

   Home agent-assisted route optimization is primarily intended for
   helping to optimize traffic patterns between multiple sites in a
   single organization or administrative domain; however, extranets can
   also be reached with optimized routes, as long as all MRs connect to
   the same HA.  The procedure aims to maintain backward compatibility;
   with legacy nodes or routers, full connectivity is always preserved,
   even though optimal routing cannot be guaranteed.

   The scheme requires an MR to be able to receive messages from other
   MRs unsolicited -- that is, without first initiating a request.  This
   behavior -- accepting unsolicited messages -- is similar to the
   registration revocation procedure [RFC3543].  Many of the mechanisms
   are the same, including the fact that advertising route optimization
   support upon registration implies the capability to receive
   Registration Requests and Return Routability messages from other MRs.







Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Compared to IPv6, where mobile node <-> correspondent node bindings
   are maintained via Mobility Routing header and home address options,
   Mobile IPv4 always requires the use of tunnels.  Therefore,
   inter-mobile-router tunnel establishment has to be conducted.

3.1.  Maintaining Route Optimization Information

   During registration, a registering MR MAY request information on
   route-optimizable network prefixes.  The MR MAY also allow
   redistribution of information on its managed network prefixes
   regardless of whether they are explicitly registered or already
   configured.  These are indicated with a Mobile Router Route
   Optimization Capability Extension; see Section 5.1.  If the HA
   accepts the request for route optimization, this is indicated with a
   Route Optimization Reply Extension (Section 5.2) in the Registration
   Reply.

   Note that the redistribution of network prefix information from the
   HA happens only during the registration signaling.  There are no
   "routing updates" from the HA except during re-registrations
   triggered by handovers, registration timeouts, and specific
   solicitation.  The solicitation re-registration MAY occur if a CR
   receives a Registration Request from an unknown MR (see
   Section 3.3.3).

3.1.1.  Advertising Route-Optimizable Prefixes

   As noted, an HA that supports NEMO already maintains information on
   which network prefixes are reachable behind specific MRs.  The only
   change to this functionality is that this information can now be
   distributed to other MRs upon request.  This request is implied by
   including a Route Optimization Capability Extension (Section 5.1) and
   setting the 'R' bit.

   When an HA receives a Registration Request, standard authentication
   and authorization procedures are conducted.

   If registration is successful and the Route Optimization Capability
   Extension was present in the Registration Request, the reply message
   MUST include the Route Optimization Reply Extension (Section 5.2) to
   indicate that the Route Optimization Capability Extension was
   understood.  Furthermore, the extension also informs the MR whether
   NAT was detected between the HA and the MR using the procedure in
   RFC 3519 [RFC3519], which is based on the discrepancy between the
   requester's indicated CoA and the packet's source address.






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   The reply message MAY also include one Route Optimization Prefix
   Advertisement Extension, which informs the MR of existing mobile
   network prefixes and the MRs that manage them, if eligible for
   redistribution.  The networks SHOULD be included in order of
   priority, with the prefixes determined, by policy, as most desirable
   targets for route optimization listed first.  The extension is
   constructed as shown in Section 5.5.  The extension consists of a
   list where each MR, identified by its HoA, is listed with
   corresponding prefix(es) and their respective realm(s).

   Each network prefix can be associated with a realm [RFC4282], usually
   in the form 'organization.example.com'.  Besides the routers in the
   customer's own organization, the prefix list may also include other
   MRs, e.g., a default prefix (0.0.0.0/0) pointing toward an Internet
   gateway for Internet connectivity or additional prefixes belonging to
   possible extranets.  The realm information can be used to make policy
   decisions on the MR, such as preferring optimization within a
   specific realm only.  Furthermore, the unique realm information can
   be used to differentiate between overlapping address spaces utilized
   by the same or different organizations concurrently and adjusting
   forwarding policies accordingly.

   In a typical scenario, where network prefixes are allocated to MRs
   connecting to a single HA, the prefixes are usually either continuous
   or at least very close to each other.  Due to these characteristics,
   an optional prefix compression mechanism is provided.  Another
   optional compression scheme is in use for realm information, where
   realms often share the same higher-level domains.  These compression
   mechanisms are further explained in Section 4.

   Upon receiving a Registration Reply with a Route Optimization Prefix
   Advertisement Extension, the MR SHALL insert the MR HoAs included in
   the extension as host-prefixes to the local Route Optimization Cache
   if they do not already exist.  If present, any additional prefix
   information SHALL also be inserted into the Route Optimization Cache.

   The MR MAY discard entries from a desired starting point onward, due
   to memory or other policy-related constraints.  The intention of
   listing the prefixes in order of priority is to provide implicit
   guidance for this decision.  If the capacity of the device allows,
   the MR SHOULD use information on all advertised prefixes.










Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


3.1.2.  Route Optimization Cache

   MRs supporting route optimization will maintain a Route Optimization
   Cache.

   The Route Optimization Cache contains mappings between potential CR
   HoAs, network(s) associated with each HoA, information on
   reachability related to NAT and other divisions, and information
   related to the RR procedure.  The cache is populated based on
   information received from the HA in Route Optimization Prefix
   Advertisement Extensions and in registration messages from CRs.
   Portions of the cache may also be configured statically.

   The Route Optimization Cache contains the following information for
   all known CRs.  Note that some fields may contain multiple entries.
   For example, during handovers, there may be both old and new CoAs
   listed.

   CR-HoA

      Correspondent router's home address.  Primary key identifying
      each CR.

   CR-CoA(s)

      Correspondent router's care-of address(es).  May be empty if none
      known.  Potential tunnel's destination address(es).

   MR-CoA

      Mobile router's care-of address currently used with this CR.
      Tunnel's source address.

   Tunnels

      Tunnel interface(s) associated with this CR.  The tunnel interface
      itself handles all the necessary operations to keep the tunnel
      operational, e.g., sending keepalive messages required by UDP
      encapsulation.

   NAT states

      A table of booleans.  Contains entries for all pairs of potential
      MR-CoAs and CR-CoAs that are known to require NAT awareness.  The
      table is populated either statically or based on information
      received during operation.  A setting of true indicates that the
      MR can establish a UDP tunnel toward the CR, using this pair of
      CoAs.  A received advertisement can indicate that the value should



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


      be set to false for all of the respective CR's CoAs.  Settings in
      this table affect tunnel establishment direction; see
      Section 3.3.4 and the registration procedure when deciding which
      CoAs to include in the Care-of Address Extension in the
      Registration Reply.  The existence of an entry mandates the use of
      UDP encapsulation.

   RRSTATEs

      Return routability state for each CR-HoA - MR-CoA pair.  States
      are INACTIVE, IN PROGRESS, and ACTIVE.  If state is INACTIVE, the
      RR procedure must be completed before forwarding route-optimized
      traffic.  If state is IN PROGRESS or ACTIVE, the information
      concerning this CR MUST NOT be removed from the Route Optimization
      Cache as long as a tunnel to the CR is established.

   KRms

      Registration management key for each CR-HoA - MR-CoA pair.  This
      field is only used if configured statically -- if the KRm was
      computed using the RR procedure, it is calculated in situ based on
      nonces and the router key.  If configured statically, RRSTATE is
      permanently set to ACTIVE.

   Care-of nonce indices

      If the KRm was established with the RR procedure, contains the
      care-of nonce index for each MR-CoA - CR-HoA pair.

   Care-of keygen token

      If the KRm was established with the RR procedure, contains the
      care-of keygen token for each MR-CoA - CR-HoA pair.

   Home nonce indices

      If the KRm was established with the RR procedure, contains the
      Home nonce index for each CR-HoA.

   Home keygen token

      If the KRm was established with the RR procedure, contains the
      home keygen token for each CR-HoA.








Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Network prefixes

      A list of destination network prefixes reachable via this CR.
      Includes network and prefix length, e.g., 192.0.2.0/25.  Always
      contains at least a single entry: the CR-HoA host network prefix
      in the form of 192.0.2.1/32.

   Realms

      Each prefix may be associated with a realm.  May also be empty, if
      the realm is not provided by advertisement or configuration.

   Prefix_Valid

      Boolean field for each prefix - CR-HoA pair, which is set to true
      if this prefix's owner has been confirmed.  The host network
      prefix consisting of the CR itself does not need validation beyond
      the RR procedure.  For other prefixes, the confirmation is done by
      soliciting the information from the HA.  Traffic for prefixes that
      have unconfirmed ownership should not be routed through the
      tunnel.

   Information that is no longer valid due to expirations or topology
   changes MAY be removed from the Route Optimization Cache as desired
   by the MR.

3.2.  Return Routability Procedure

   The purpose of the RR procedure is to establish CoA <-> HoA bindings
   in a trusted manner.  The RR procedure for Mobile IPv6 is described
   in [RFC6275].  The same principles apply to the Mobile IPv4 version:
   two messages are sent to the CR's HoA -- one via the HA using the
   MR's HoA, and the other directly from the MR's CoA, with two
   responses coming through the same routes.  The registration
   management key is derived from token information carried on these
   messages.  This registration management key (KRm) can then be used to
   authenticate Registration Requests (comparable to Binding Updates in
   Mobile IPv6).

   The RR procedure is a method provided by Mobile IP to establish the
   KRm in a relatively lightweight fashion.  If desired, the KRms can be
   configured on MRs statically, or by using a desired external secure
   key provisioning mechanism.  If KRms are known to the MRs via some
   other mechanism, the RR procedure can be skipped.  Such provisioning
   mechanisms are out of scope for this document.






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   The main assumption on traffic patterns is that the MR that initiates
   the RR procedure can always send outbound messages, even when behind
   a NAT or firewall.  This basic assumption made for NAT Traversal in
   [RFC3519] is also applicable here.  In the case where the CR is
   behind such obstacles, it receives these messages via the reverse
   tunnel to the CR's HoA; thus, any problem regarding the CR's
   connectivity is addressed during registration with the HA.

   The RR procedure consists of four Mobile IP messages: Home Test Init
   (HoTI), Care-of Test Init (CoTI), Home Test (HoT), and Care-of Test
   (CoT).  They are constructed as shown in Sections 5.6 through 5.9.
   If the MR has included the Mobile Router Route Optimization
   Capability Extension in its Registration Request, it MUST be able to
   accept Return Routability messages.  The messages are delivered as
   Mobile IP signaling packets.  The destination address of the HoTI and
   CoTI messages is set to the CR's HoA, with the sources being the MR's
   HoA and CoA, respectively.

   The RR procedure begins with the MR sending HoTI and CoTI messages,
   each containing a (different) 64-bit random value -- the cookie.  The
   cookie is used to bind a specific signaling exchange together.

   Upon receiving the HoTI or CoTI message, the CR MUST have a secret
   correspondent router key (Kcr) and nonce.  If it does not have this
   material yet, it MUST produce it before continuing with the RR
   procedure.

   The CR responds to HoTI and CoTI messages by constructing HoT and CoT
   messages, respectively, as replies.  The HoT message contains a home
   init cookie, current home nonce index, and home keygen token.  The
   CoT message contains a care-of init cookie, current care-of nonce
   index, and care-of keygen token.

   The home keygen token is constructed as follows:

   Home keygen token = First (64, HMAC_SHA1 (Kcr, (home address |
      nonce | 0)))

   The care-of keygen token is constructed as follows:

   Care-of keygen token = First (64, HMAC_SHA1 (Kcr, (care-of address |
      nonce | 1)))

   Note that the CoA in this case is the source address of the received
   CoTI message packet.  The address may have changed in transit due to
   network address translation.  This does not affect the registration
   process; subsequent Registration Requests are expected to arrive from
   the same translated address.



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   The RR procedure SHOULD be initiated when the Route Optimization
   Cache's RRSTATE field for the desired CoA with the target CR is
   INACTIVE.  If the state was INACTIVE, the state MUST be set to IN
   PROGRESS when the RR procedure is initiated.  In the case of a
   handover occurring, the MR SHOULD only send a CoTI message to obtain
   a new care-of keygen token; the home keygen token may still be valid.
   If the reply to a registration indicates that one or both of the
   tokens have expired, the RRSTATE MUST be set to INACTIVE.  The RR
   procedure may then be restarted as needed.

   Upon completion of the RR procedure, the Route Optimization Cache's
   RRSTATE field is set to ACTIVE, allowing for Registration Requests to
   be sent.  The MR will establish a KRm.  By default, this will be done
   using the SHA1 hash algorithm, as follows:

   KRm = SHA1 (home keygen token | care-of keygen token)

   When de-registering (by setting the Registration Request's lifetime
   to zero), the care-of keygen token is not used.  Instead, the KRm is
   generated as follows:

   KRm = SHA1 (home keygen token)

   As in Mobile IPv6, the CR does not maintain any state for the MR
   until after receiving a Registration Request.

3.2.1.  Router Keys

   Each MR maintains a Kcr, which MUST NOT be shared with any other
   entity.  The Kcr is used for authenticating peer MRs in the situation
   where an MR is acting as a CR.  This is analogous to the node key
   (Kcn) in Mobile IPv6.  A CR uses its router key to verify that the
   keygen tokens sent by a peer MR in a Registration Request are the
   CR's own.  The router key MUST be a random number, 16 octets in
   length, generated with a good random number generator [RFC4086].

   The MR MAY generate a new key at any time to avoid persistent key
   storage.  If desired, it is RECOMMENDED that the keys be expired in
   conjunction with nonces; see Section 3.2.3.

3.2.2.  Nonces

   Each MR also maintains one or more indexed nonces.  Nonces SHOULD be
   generated periodically with a good random number generator [RFC4086].
   The MR may use the same nonces with all MRs.  Nonces MAY be of any
   length, with the RECOMMENDED length being 64 bits.





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


3.2.3.  Updating Router Keys and Nonces

   The router keys and nonce updating guidelines are similar to those
   for Mobile IPv6.  MRs keep both the current nonce and the small set
   of valid previous nonces whose lifetimes have not expired yet.  A
   nonce should remain valid for at least MAX_TOKEN_LIFETIME seconds
   (see Section 9) after it has first been used in constructing an RR
   response.  However, the CR MUST NOT accept nonces beyond
   MAX_NONCE_LIFETIME seconds (see Section 9) after the first use.  As
   the difference between these two constants is 30 seconds, a
   convenient way to enforce the above lifetimes is to generate a new
   nonce every 30 seconds.  The node can then continue to accept keygen
   tokens that have been based on the last 8 (MAX_NONCE_LIFETIME / 30)
   nonces.  This results in keygen tokens being acceptable
   MAX_TOKEN_LIFETIME to MAX_NONCE_LIFETIME seconds after they have been
   sent to the mobile node, depending on whether the token was sent at
   the beginning or end of the first 30-second period.  Note that the
   correspondent node may also attempt to generate new nonces on demand,
   or only if the old nonces have been used.  This is possible as long
   as the correspondent node keeps track of how long ago the nonces were
   used for the first time and does not generate new nonces on every
   return routability request.

   If the Kcr is being updated, the update SHOULD be done at the same
   time as the nonce is updated.  This way, nonce indexes can be used to
   refer to both Kcrs and nonces.

3.3.  Mobile-Correspondent Router Operations

   This section deals with the operation of mobile and correspondent
   routers performing route optimization.  Note that in the context of
   this document, all routers work as both MR and CR.  The term "mobile
   router" applies to the router initiating the route optimization
   procedure, and "correspondent router" indicates the peer router.

   There are two issues regarding IPv4 that are different when compared
   to Mobile IPv6 route optimization.  First of all, since Mobile IPv4
   always uses tunnels, there must be a tunnel established between the
   MR's and the CR's CoAs.  The CR learns of the MR's CoA, because it is
   included in the Registration Request.  The MR learns the CR's CoA via
   a new extension, "Care-of Address", in the Registration Reply.  The
   second issue is a security consideration: In a Registration Request,
   the MR claims to represent an arbitrary IPv4 network.  If the CR has
   not yet received this information (HoA <-> network prefix), it SHOULD
   perform a re-registration with the HA to verify the claim.






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 16]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   An additional aspect is that the MR MAY use a different CoA for
   different CRs (and the HA).  This is useful in situations where the
   network provides only partial-mesh connectivity and specific
   interfaces must be used to reach specific destinations.  In addition,
   this allows for load balancing.

3.3.1.  Triggering Route Optimization

   Since each MR knows the eligible route-optimizable networks, the
   route optimization between all CRs can be established at any time;
   however, a better general practice is to conduct route optimization
   only on demand.  It is RECOMMENDED that route optimization be started
   only when sending a packet that originates from a local managed
   network (and if the network is registered as route optimizable) and
   whose destination address falls within the network prefixes of the
   Route Optimization Cache.  With a small number of MRs, such on-demand
   behavior may not be necessary, and full-mesh route optimization may
   be in place constantly.

3.3.2.  Mobile Router Routing Tables

   Each MR maintains a routing table.  In a typical situation, the MR
   has one or more interface(s) to the local networks, one or more
   interface(s) to wide-area networks (such as those provided by ISPs),
   and a tunnel interface to the HA.  Additional tunnel interfaces
   become activated as route optimization is being performed.

   The routing table SHOULD typically contain network prefixes managed
   by CRs associated with established route-optimized tunnel interfaces.
   A default route MAY point to the reverse tunnel to the HA if not
   overridden by prefix information.  The routing table MAY also include
   additional routes if required by the tunneling implementation.

   The routes for the HoAs of any CRs SHOULD also be pointing toward
   their respective tunnels that are using the optimized path.

   If two prefixes overlap each other, e.g., 192.0.2.128/25 and
   192.0.2.128/29, the standard longest-match rule for routing is in
   effect.  However, overlapping private addresses SHOULD be considered
   an error situation.  Any aggregation for routes in private address
   space SHOULD be conducted only at the HA.










Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 17]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


3.3.3.  Inter-Mobile Router Registration

   If route optimization between an MR and a CR is desired, either the
   RR procedure must have been performed (see Section 3.2), or the KRm
   must be pre-shared between the MR and the CR.  If either condition
   applies, an MR MAY send a Registration Request to the CR's HoA from
   the desired interface.

   The Registration Request's Source Address and Care-of Address fields
   are set to the address of the desired outgoing interface on the MR.
   The address MAY be the same as the CoA used with the HA.  The Home
   Agent field is set to the HA of the MR.  The Registration Request
   MUST be sent to (have a destination address of) the HoA of the CR.
   The Registration Request MUST include a Mobile-Correspondent
   Authentication Extension (defined in Section 5.3) and SHOULD include
   a Mobile Network Request Extension (defined in [RFC5177]).  If
   present, the Mobile Network Request Extension MUST contain the
   network prefixes, as if registering in explicit mode.  If timestamps
   are used, the CR MUST check the Identification field for validity.
   The Authenticator field is hashed with the KRm.

   The CR replies to the request with a Registration Reply.  The
   Registration Reply MUST include a Mobile-Correspondent Authentication
   Extension (defined in Section 5.3) and, if a Mobile Network Request
   Extension was present in the request, a Mobile Network
   Acknowledgement Extension.

   The encapsulation can be set as desired, except in the case where the
   Route Optimization Cache Entry has NAT entries for the CR, or the MR
   itself is known to be behind a NAT or firewall.  If either condition
   applies, the Registration Request MUST specify UDP encapsulation.  It
   is RECOMMENDED that UDP encapsulation always be used to facilitate
   detection of path failures via a keepalive mechanism.

   The CR first checks the Registration Request's authentication against
   Kcr and nonce indexes negotiated during the RR procedure.  This
   ensures that the Registration Request is coming from a valid MR.  If
   the check fails, an appropriate Registration Reply code is sent (see
   Section 10).  If the failure is due to the nonce index expiring, the
   MR sets RRSTATE for the CR to INACTIVE.  The RR procedure MAY then be
   initiated again.

   If the check passes, the CR MUST then check its Route Optimization
   Cache to determine whether the MR exists and is associated with the
   prefixes included in the request (i.e., whether prefixes are present






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 18]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   and the 'HA' flag is true for each prefix).  Note that the viewpoint
   is always local; the CR compares CR-HoA entries against the MR's HoA
   -- from the CR's perspective, the MR is also a "correspondent
   router".

   If the check against the cache fails, the CR SHOULD send a
   re-Registration Request to the HA with the 'S' (solicitation) bit
   set, thus obtaining the latest information on network prefixes
   managed by the incoming MR.  If, even after this update, the prefixes
   still don't match, the reply's Mobile Network Acknowledgement code
   MUST be set to "MOBNET_UNAUTHORIZED".  The registration MAY also be
   rejected completely.  This verification is done to protect against
   MRs claiming to represent arbitrary networks; however, since the HA
   is assumed to provide trusted information, it can authorize the MR's
   claim.  If the environment itself is considered trusted, the CR can,
   as a policy, accept registrations without this check; however, this
   is NOT RECOMMENDED as a general practice.

   If the prefixes match, the CR MAY accept the registration.  If the CR
   chooses to accept, the CR MUST check to determine if a tunnel to the
   MR already exists.  If the tunnel does NOT exist or has wrong
   endpoints (CoAs), a new tunnel MUST be established and the Route
   Optimization Cache updated.  The reply MUST include a list of
   eligible CoAs (see Section 5.4) with which the MR may establish a
   tunnel.  The reply MUST also include the Mobile-Correspondent
   Authentication Extension (see Section 5.3).

   Upon receiving the Registration Reply, the MR MUST check to determine
   if a tunnel to the CR already exists.  If the tunnel does NOT exist
   or has wrong endpoints (CoAs), a new tunnel MUST be established and
   the Route Optimization Cache updated.  This is covered in detail in
   Section 3.3.4.

   The CR's routing table MUST be updated to indicate that the MR's
   networks are reachable via the direct tunnel to the MR.

   After the tunnel is established, the MR MAY update its routing tables
   to reach all of the CR's Prefixes via the tunnel, although it is
   RECOMMENDED that time be given for the CR to perform its own,
   explicit registration.  This is primarily a policy decision,
   depending on the network environment.  See Section 6.5.

   Due to the fact that the route optimization procedures may occur
   concurrently at both MRs, each working as each other's CR, there may
   be a situation where two routers are attempting to establish separate
   tunnels between them at the same time.  If a router with a smaller
   HoA (meaning a normal 32-bit integer comparison treating IPv4
   addresses as 32-bit unsigned integers) receives a Registration



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 19]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Request (in the CR role) while its own Registration Request (sent in
   the MR role) is pending, the attempt should be accepted with reply
   code "concurrent registration" (Value 2).  If receiving such an
   indication, the recipient SHOULD consider the registration a success
   but only act on it once the peer has completed its own registration.

3.3.4.  Inter-Mobile Router Tunnels

   Inter-MR tunnel establishment follows establishing standard reverse
   tunnels to the HA.  The Registration Request to the CR includes
   information on the desired encapsulation.  It is RECOMMENDED that UDP
   encapsulation be used.  In the cases of Generic Router Encapsulation
   (GRE) [RFC2784], IP over IP [RFC2003], or minimal encapsulation
   [RFC2004], no special considerations regarding reachability are
   necessary.  The tunnel has no stateful information; the packets are
   simply encapsulated within the GRE, IP, or minimal header.

   The tunnel origination point for the CR is its CoA, not the HoA where
   the Registration Requests were sent.  This is different from the
   creation of the reverse tunnel to the HA, which reuses the channel
   from registration signaling.

   Special considerations rise from using UDP encapsulation, especially
   in cases where one of the MRs is located behind a NAT or firewall.  A
   deviation from RFC 3519 [RFC3519] is that keepalives should be sent
   from both ends of the tunnel to detect path failures after the
   initial keepalive has been sent -- this allows both the MR and CR to
   detect path failures.

   The initial UDP keepalive SHOULD be sent by the MR.  Only after the
   first keepalive is successfully completed SHOULD the tunnel be
   considered eligible for traffic.  If a reply to the initial keepalive
   is not received, the MR may opt to attempt sending the keepalive to
   other CoAs provided by the Registration Reply to check whether they
   provide better connectivity; or, if all of these fail, the MR may
   perform a re-registration via an alternative interface, or deregister
   completely.  See Section 6.1.  Once the initial keepalive packet has
   reached the CR and a reply has been sent, the CR MAY start sending
   its own keepalives.

   The original specification for UDP encapsulation suggests a keepalive
   interval default of 110 seconds.  However, to provide fast response
   time and switching to alternate paths, it is RECOMMENDED, if power
   and other constraints allow, that considerably shorter periods be
   used, adapting to the perceived latency as needed.  However, the
   maximum amount of keepalives SHOULD at no point exceed





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 20]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   MAX_UPDATE_RATE times per second.  The purpose of the keepalive is
   not to keep NAT or firewall mappings in place but to serve as a
   mechanism to provide fast response in case of path failures.

   If both the MR and the CR are behind separate NATs, route
   optimization cannot be performed between them.  Possible ways to set
   up mutual tunneling when both routers are behind NATs are outside the
   scope of this document.  However, some of these issues are addressed
   in Section 6.1.

   The designations "MR" and "CR" only apply to the initial tunnel
   establishment phase.  Once a tunnel is established between two
   routers, either of them can opt to either tear down the tunnel or
   perform a handover.  Signaling messages have to be authenticated with
   a valid KRm.

3.3.5.  Constructing Route-Optimized Packets

   All packets received by the MR are forwarded using normal routing
   rules according to the routing table.  There are no special
   considerations when constructing the packets; the tunnel interface's
   own processes will encapsulate any packet automatically.

3.3.6.  Handovers and Mobile Routers Leaving Network

   Handovers and connection breakdowns can be categorized as either
   ungraceful or graceful, also known as "break-before-make" (bbm) and
   "make-before-break" (mbb) situations.

   As with establishment, the "mobile router" discussed here is the
   router wishing to change connectivity state, with the "correspondent
   router" being the peer.

   When an MR wishes to join its home link, it SHOULD, in addition to
   sending the Registration Request to the HA with lifetime set to zero,
   also send such a request to all known CRs, to their HoAs.  The CR(s),
   upon accepting this request and sending the reply, will check whether
   the Route Optimization Cache contains any prefixes associated with
   the requesting MR.  These entries should be removed and the routing
   table updated accordingly (traffic for the prefixes will be forwarded
   via the HA again).  The tunnel MUST then be destroyed.  A short grace
   period SHOULD be used to allow possible in-transit packets to be
   received correctly.

   In the case of a handover, the CR simply needs to update the tunnel's
   destination to the MR's new CoA.  The MR SHOULD keep accepting
   packets from both old and new CoAs for a short grace period,
   typically on the order of ten seconds.  In the case of UDP



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 21]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   encapsulation, it is RECOMMENDED that the same port numbers be used
   for both registration signaling and tunneled traffic, if possible.
   The initial keepalive message sent by the MR will verify that direct
   connectivity exists between the MR and CR -- if the keepalive fails,
   the MR SHOULD attempt alternate paths.

   If the MR was unable to send the re-Registration Request before
   handover, it MUST send it immediately after handover has been
   completed and a tunnel with the HA is established.  Since the
   changing of CoA(s) invalidates the KRm, it is RECOMMENDED that
   partial return routability be conducted by sending a CoTI message via
   the new CoA and obtaining a new care-of keygen token.  In all cases,
   necessary tokens also have to be acquired if the existing tokens have
   expired.

   If a reply is not received for a Registration Request to a CR, any
   routes to the network prefixes managed by the CR MUST be removed from
   the routing table, thus causing the user traffic to be forwarded via
   the HA.

3.4.  Convergence and Synchronization Issues

   The information the HA maintains on mobile network prefixes and the
   MRs' Route Optimization Caches does not need to be explicitly
   synchronized.  This is based on the assumption that at least some of
   the traffic between nodes inside mobile networks is always
   bidirectional.  If using on-demand route optimization, this also
   implies that when a node in a mobile network talks to a node in
   another mobile network, if the initial packet does not trigger route
   optimization, the reply packet will.

   Consider a situation with three mobile networks, A, B, and C, handled
   by three mobile routers, MR A, MR B, and MR C, respectively.  If they
   register with an HA in this order, the situation goes as follows:

   MR A registers and receives no information on other networks from the
   HA, as no other MR has registered yet.

   MR B registers and receives information on mobile network A being
   reachable via MR A.

   MR C registers and receives information on both of the other mobile
   networks.

   If a node in mobile network C is about to send traffic to mobile
   network A, the route optimization is straightforward; MR C already
   has network A in its Route Optimization Cache.  Thus, packet
   transmission triggers route optimization toward MR A.  When MR C



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 22]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   registers with MR A (after the RR procedure is completed), MR A does
   not have information on mobile network C; thus, it will perform a
   re-registration with the HA on demand.  This allows MR A to verify
   that MR C is indeed managing network C.

   If a node in mobile network B sends traffic to mobile network C, MR B
   has no information on network C.  No route optimization is triggered.
   However, when the node in network C replies and the reply reaches MR
   C, route optimization happens as above.  Further examples of
   signaling are in Section 8.

   Even in the very rare case of completely unidirectional traffic from
   an entire network, re-registrations with the HA caused by timeouts
   will eventually cause convergence.  However, this should be treated
   as a special case.

   Note that all MRs are connected to the same HA.  For possibilities
   concerning multiple HAs, see Section 6.4.

4.  Data Compression Schemes

   This section defines the two compression formats used in Route
   Optimization Prefix Advertisement Extensions.

4.1.  Prefix Compression

   Prefix compression is based on the idea that prefixes usually share
   common properties.  The scheme is simple delta compression.  In the
   prefix information advertisement (Section 5.5), the 'D' bit indicates
   whether receiving a "master" or a "delta" prefix.  This, combined
   with the Prefix Length information, allows for compression and
   decompression of prefix information.

   If D = 0, what follows in the "Prefix" field are bits 1..n of the new
   master prefix, where n is PLen.  This is rounded up to the nearest
   full octet.  Thus, prefix lengths of /4 and /8 take 1 octet, /12 and
   /16 take 2 octets, /20 and /24 take 3 octets, and longer prefix
   lengths take a full 4 octets.

   If D = 1, what follows in the "Prefix" field are bits m..PLen of the
   prefix, where m is the first changed bit of the previous master
   prefix, with padding from the master prefix filling the field to a
   full octet.  The maximum value of PLen - m is 8 (that is, the delta
   MUST fit into one octet).  If this is not possible, a new master
   prefix has to be declared.  If the prefixes are equal -- for example,
   in the case where the same prefix appears in multiple realms -- then
   one octet is still encoded, consisting completely of padding from the
   master prefix.



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 23]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Determining the order of prefix transmission should be based on
   saving maximum space during transmission.

   An example of compression and transmitted data, where network
   prefixes 192.0.2.0/28, 192.0.2.64/26, and 192.0.2.128/25 are
   transmitted, is illustrated in Figure 1.  Because of the padding to
   full octets, redundant information is also sent.  The bit patterns
   being transmitted are as follows:

  =+= shows the prefix mask
  --- shows the master prefix for delta coded prefixes
  192.0.2.0/28, D = 0

  0                   1                     2                     3
  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 2
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|.|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|.|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|.|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|
 +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+-+-+-+-+
  ^                                                                   ^
  +---------------------------- encoded ------------------------------+
                                                                ^     ^
                                                                +-pad-+
  192.0.2.64/26, D = 1

  0                   1                     2                     3
  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 2
 +-------------------------------------------------------------+-+-+-+-+
 |1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|.|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|.|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|.|0|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|
 +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                          ^               ^
                                          +--- encoded ---+
                                          ^             ^
                                          +-- padding --+
  192.0.2.128/25, D = 1

  0                   1                     2                     3
  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 2
 +-------------------------------------------------------------+-+-+-+-+
 |1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|.|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|.|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|.|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|
 +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                        ^               ^
                                        +--- encoded ---+
                                        ^           ^
                                        +- padding -+

                   Figure 1: Prefix Compression Example





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 24]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   The first prefix, 192.0.2.0/28, is considered a master prefix and is
   transmitted in full.  The PLen of 28 bits determines that all four
   octets must be transmitted.  If the prefix would have been, e.g.,
   192.0.2.0/24, three octets would have sufficed, since 24 bits fit
   into 3 octets.

   For the following prefixes, D = 1.  Thus, they are deltas of the
   previous prefix, where D was zero.

   192.0.2.64/26 includes bits 19-26 (full octet).  Bits 19-25 are
   copied from the master prefix, but bit 26 is changed to 1.  The final
   notation in binary is "1001", or 0x09.

   192.0.2.128/25 includes bits 18-25 (full octet).  Bits 18-24 are
   copied from the master prefix, but bit 25 is changed to 1.  The final
   notation in binary is "101", or 0x05.

   The final encoding thus becomes

   +----------------+--------+-+---------------------+
   |     Prefix     |  PLen  |D| Transmitted Prefix  |
   +----------------+--------+-+---------------------+
   | 192.0.2.0/28   |  28    |0| 0xc0 0x00 0x02 0x00 |
   | 192.0.2.64/26  |  26    |1| 0x09                |
   | 192.0.2.128/25 |  25    |1| 0x05                |
   +----------------+--------+-+---------------------+

   It should be noted that in this case the order of prefix transmission
   would not affect compression efficiency.  If prefix 192.0.2.128/25
   would have been considered the master prefix and the others as deltas
   instead, the resulting encoding still fits into one octet for the
   subsequent prefixes.  There would be no need to declare a new master
   prefix.

4.2.  Realm Compression

4.2.1.  Encoding of Compressed Realms

   In order to reduce the size of messages, the system introduces a
   realm compression scheme, which reduces the size of realms in a
   message.  The compression scheme is a simple dynamically updated
   dictionary-based algorithm, which is designed to compress text
   strings of arbitrary length.  In this scheme, an entire realm, a
   single label, or a list of labels may be replaced with an index to a
   previous occurrence of the same string stored in the dictionary.  The
   realm compression defined in this specification was inspired by the
   RFC 1035 [RFC1035] DNS domain name label compression scheme.  Our
   algorithm is, however, improved to gain more compression.



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 25]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   When compressing realms, the dictionary is first reset and does not
   contain a single string.  The realms are processed one by one, so the
   algorithm does not expect to see them all or the whole message at
   once.  The state of the compressor is the current content of the
   dictionary.  The realms are compressed label by label or as a list of
   labels.  The dictionary can hold a maximum of 128 strings; after
   that, a rollover MUST occur, and existing contents will be
   overwritten.  Thus, when adding the 129th string into the dictionary,
   the first entry of the dictionary MUST be overwritten, and the index
   of the new string will become 0.

   The encoding of an index to the dictionary or an uncompressed run of
   octets representing a single label has purposely been made simple,
   and the whole encoding works on an octet granularity.  The encoding
   of an uncompressed label takes the form of one octet as follows:

    0
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-=================-+-+-+-+
   |0|   LENGTH    | 'length' octets long string.. |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-=================-+-+-+-+

   This encoding allows label lengths from 1 to 127 octets.  A label
   length of zero (0) is not allowed.  The "label length" tag octet is
   then followed by up to 127 octets of the actual encoded label string.

   The index to the dictionary (the "label index" tag octet) takes the
   form of one octet as follows:

    0
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|   INDEX     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The above encodings do not allow generating an output octet value of
   zero (0).  The encapsulating Mobile IPv4 extension makes use of this
   property and uses the value of zero (0) to mark the end of the
   compressed realm or to indicate an empty realm.  It is also possible
   to encode the complete realm using only "label length" tags.  In this
   case, no compression takes place.  This allows the sender to skip
   compression -- for example, to reduce computation requirements when
   generating messages.  However, the receiver MUST always be prepared
   to receive compressed realms.







Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 26]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


4.2.2.  Searching Algorithm

   When compressing the input realm, the dictionary is searched for a
   matching string.  If no match could be found, the last label is
   removed from the right-hand side of the used input realm.  The search
   is repeated until the whole input realm has been processed.  If no
   match was found at all, then the first label of the original input
   realm is encoded using the "label length" tag, and the label is
   inserted into the dictionary.  The previously described search is
   repeated with the remaining part of the input realm, if any.  If
   nothing remains, the realm encoding is complete.

   When a matching string is found in the dictionary, the matching part
   of the input realm is encoded using the "label index" tag.  The
   matching part of the input realm is removed, and the search is
   repeated with the remaining part of the input realm, if any.  If
   nothing remains, the octet value of zero (0) is inserted to mark the
   end of the encoded realm.

   The search algorithm also maintains the "longest non-matching string"
   for each input realm.  Each time the search in the dictionary fails
   and a new label gets encoded using the "label length" tag and
   inserted into the dictionary, the "longest non-matching string" is
   concatenated by this label, including the separating "." (dot, i.e.,
   hexadecimal 0x2e).  When a match is found in the dictionary, the
   "longest non-matching string" is reset (i.e., emptied).  Once the
   whole input realm has been processed and encoded, all possible
   suffixes longer than one label are taken from the string and inserted
   into the dictionary.

4.2.3.  Encoding Example

   This section shows an example of how to encode a set of realms using
   the specified realm compression algorithm.  For example, a message
   might need to compress the realms "foo.example.com",
   "bar.foo.example.com", "buz.foo.example.org", "example.com", and
   "bar.example.com.org".  The following example shows the processing of
   input realms on the left-hand side and the contents of the dictionary
   on the right-hand side.  The example uses hexadecimal representation
   of numbers.











Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 27]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   COMPRESSOR:                                 DICTIONARY:

   1) Input "foo.example.com"
   Search("foo.example.com")
   Search("foo.example")
   Search("foo")
   Encode(0x03,'f','o','o')                    0x00 "foo"
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = "foo"
   Search("example.com")
   Search("example")
   Encode(0x07,'e','x','a','m','p','l','e')    0x01 "example"
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = "foo.example"
   Search("com")
   Encode(0x03,'c','o','m')                    0x02 "com"
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = "foo.example.com"
                                               0x03 "foo.example.com"
                                               0x04 "example.com"
   Encode(0x00)

   2) Input "bar.foo.example.com"
   Search("bar.foo.example.com")
   Search("bar.foo.example")
   Search("bar.foo")
   Search("bar")
   Encode(0x03,'b','a','r')                    0x05 "bar"
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = "bar"
   Search("foo.example.com") -> match to 0x03
   Encode(0x83)
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = NUL
   Encode(0x00)





















Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 28]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   3) Input "buz.foo.example.org"
   Search("buz.foo.example.org")
   Search("buz.foo.example")
   Search("buz.foo")
   Search("buz")
   Encode(0x03,'b','u','z')                    0x06 "buz"
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = "buz"
   Search("foo.example.org")
   Search("foo.example")
   Search("foo") -> match to 0x00
   Encode(0x80)
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = NUL
   Search("example.org")
   Search("example") -> match to 0x01
   Encode(0x81)
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = NUL
   Search("org")
   Encode(0x03,'o','r','g')                    0x07 "org"
     +-> "longest non-matching string" = "org"
   Encode(0x00)

   4) Input "example.com"
   Search("example.com") -> match to 0x04
   Encode(0x84)
   Encode(0x00)

   5) Input "bar.example.com.org"
   Search("bar.example.com.org")
   Search("bar.example.com")
   Search("bar.example")
   Search("bar") -> match to 0x05
   Encode(0x85)
   Search("example.com.org")
   Search("example.com") -> match to 0x04
   Encode(0x84)
   Search("org") -> match to 0x07
   Encode(0x87)
   Encode(0x00)

   As can be seen from the example, due to the greedy approach of
   encoding matches, the search algorithm and the dictionary update
   function are not the most optimal.  However, we do not claim that the
   algorithm would be the most efficient.  It functions efficiently
   enough for most inputs.  In this example, the original input realm
   data was 79 octets, and the compressed output, excluding the end
   mark, is 35 octets.





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 29]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


5.  New Mobile IPv4 Messages and Extensions

   This section describes the construction of all new information
   elements.

5.1.  Mobile Router Route Optimization Capability Extension

   This skippable extension MAY be sent by an MR to an HA in the
   Registration Request message.

     0               1               2               3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Type      |    Length     |    Subtype    |A|R|S|O| Rsvd  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                 Optional Mobile Router HoA                    ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      153 (skippable); if the HA does not support route
             optimization advertisements, it can ignore this request and
             simply not include any information in the reply. "short"
             extension format.

   Subtype   1

   Reserved  Set to zero; MUST be ignored on reception.

   A         Advertise my networks.  If the 'A' bit is set, the HA is
             allowed to advertise the networks managed by this MR to
             other MRs.  This also indicates that the MR is capable of
             receiving route optimization Registration Requests.  In
             effect, this allows the MR to work in the CR role.

   R         Request mobile network information.  If the 'R' bit is set,
             the HA MAY respond with information about mobile networks
             in the same domain.

   S         Solicit prefixes managed by a specific MR.  The MR is
             specified in the Optional Mobile Router HoA field.

   O         Explicitly specify that the requesting router is only able
             to initiate outgoing connections and not accept any
             incoming connections, due to a NAT device, stateful
             firewall, or similar issue on any interface.  This is
             reflected by the HA in the reply and distributed in Prefix
             Advertisements to other MRs.





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 30]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Optional Mobile Router HoA

             Solicited mobile router's home address.  This field is only
             included if the 'S' flag is set.

5.2.  Route Optimization Reply

   This non-skippable extension MUST be sent by an HA to an MR in the
   Registration Reply message, if the MR indicated support for route
   optimization in the registration message and the HA supports route
   optimization.

     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     |    Subtype    |O|N|S|   Code  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      49 (non-skippable); "short" extension format.

   Subtype   1

   O         The 'O' flag in the Mobile Router Route Optimization
             Capability Extension was set during registration.

   N         NAT was detected by the HA.  This informs the MR that it is
             located behind a NAT.  The detection procedure is specified
             in RFC 3519 [RFC3519] and is based on the discrepancy
             between the registration packet's source address and
             indicated CoA.  The MR can use this information to make
             decisions about route optimization strategy.

   S         Responding to a solicitation.  If the 'S' bit was present
             in the MR's Route Optimization Capability Extension
             (Section 5.1), this bit is set; otherwise, it is unset.

   The Reply code indicates whether route optimization has been
   accepted.  Values of 0..15 indicate assent, and values 16..63
   indicate that route optimization is not done.

   0         Will do route optimization.

   16        Route optimization declined; reason unspecified.








Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 31]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


5.3.  Mobile-Correspondent Authentication Extension

   The Mobile-Correspondent Authentication Extension is included in
   Registration Requests sent from the MR to the CR.  The existence of
   this extension indicates that the message is not destined to an HA,
   but another MR.  The format is similar to the other authentication
   extensions defined in [RFC5944], with Security Parameter Indexes
   (SPIs) replaced by nonce indexes.

     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     |    Subtype    |    Reserved   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |      Home Nonce Index         |     Care-of Nonce Index       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                      Authenticator...                         ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Home Nonce Index field tells the CR which nonce value to use when
   producing the home keygen token.  The Care-of Nonce Index field is
   ignored in requests to remove a binding.  Otherwise, it tells the CR
   which nonce value to use when producing the care-of keygen token.  If
   using a pre-shared key (KRm), the indexes may be set to zero and are
   ignored on reception.

   Type      49 (non-skippable); "short" extension format.

   Subtype   2

   Reserved  Set to zero; MUST be ignored on reception.

   Home Nonce Index

             Home Nonce Index in use.  If using a pre-shared KRm, set to
             zero and ignored on reception.

   Care-of Nonce Index

             Care-of Nonce Index in use.  If using a pre-shared KRm, set
             to zero and ignored on reception.

   Authenticator

             Authenticator field, by default constructed with
             First (128, HMAC_SHA1 (KRm, Protected Data)).





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 32]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   The protected data, just like in other cases where the Authenticator
   field is used, consists of

   o  the UDP payload (i.e., the Registration Request or Registration
      Reply data),

   o  all prior extensions in their entirety, and

   o  the Type, Length, Home Nonce Index, and Care-of Nonce Index of
      this extension.

5.4.  Care-of Address Extension

   The Care-of Address Extension is added to a Registration Reply sent
   by the CR to inform the MR of the upcoming tunnel endpoint.

     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     |    Subtype    |   Reserved    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       1..n times the following information structure
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Care-of Address                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      49 (non-skippable); "short" extension format.

   Length    Total length of the packet.  When processing the
             information structures, if Length octets have been reached,
             this is an indication that the final information structure
             was reached as well.

   Subtype   3

   Care-of Address

             Care-of address(es) that may be used for a tunnel with the
             MR, in order of priority.  Multiple CoAs MAY be listed to
             facilitate faster NAT traversal processing.











Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 33]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


5.5.  Route Optimization Prefix Advertisement Extension

   This non-skippable extension MAY be sent by an HA to an MR in the
   Registration Reply message.  This extension is only included when
   explicitly requested by the MR in the Registration Request message,
   setting the 'R' flag of the Mobile Router Route Optimization
   Capability Extension.  Implicit prioritization of prefixes is caused
   by the order of extensions.

   The extension contains a sequence of information structures.  An
   information structure may consist of either an MR HoA or a network
   prefix.  Any network prefixes following an MR HoA are owned by that
   MR.  An MR HoA MUST be first in the sequence, since one cannot have
   prefixes without an MR.

     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      |    Subtype    |             Length            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     1..n times the following information structure
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |D|M| PLen/Info |  Optional Mobile Router HoA (4 octets)        ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~               |  Optional Prefix (1, 2, 3, or 4 octets)       ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                   Realm (1..n characters)                     ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      50 (non-skippable); "long" extension format.

   Subtype   1

   Length    Total length of the packet.  When processing the
             information structures, if Length octets have been reached,
             this is an indication that the final information structure
             was reached as well.

   D         Delta.  If D = 1, the prefix is a delta from the last
             Prefix, where D = 0.  MUST be zero on the first information
             structure containing a Prefix; MAY be zero or one on
             subsequent information structures.  If D = 1, the Prefix
             field is one octet in length.  See Section 4.1 for details.








Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 34]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   M         Mobile Router HoA bit.  If M = 1, the next field is Mobile
             Router HoA, and Prefix and Realm are omitted.  If M = 0,
             the next field is Prefix followed by Realm, and Mobile
             Router HoA is omitted.  For the first information
             structure, M MUST be set to 1.  If M = 1, the 'D' bit is
             set to zero and ignored upon reception.

   PLen/Info

             This field is interpreted differently, depending on whether
             the 'M' bit is set or not.  If M = 0, the field is
             considered to be the PLen field, and the contents indicate
             the length of the advertised prefix.  The 6 bits allow for
             values from 0 to 63, of which 33-63 are illegal.  If M = 1,
             the field is considered to be the Info field.  Permissible
             values are 0 to indicate no specific information, or 1 to
             indicate "outbound connections only".  This indicates that
             the target MR can only initiate, not receive, connections
             on any of its interfaces (apart from the reverse tunnel to
             the HA).  This is set if the MR has explicitly requested it
             via the 'O' flag in the Mobile Router Route Optimization
             Capability Extension (Section 5.1).

   Mobile Router HoA

             The mobile router's home address.  All prefixes in the
             following information structures where M = 0 are maintained
             by this MR.  This field is present only when M = 1.

   Prefix    The IPv4 prefix advertised.  If D = 0, the field length is
             PLen bits, rounded up to the nearest full octet.  Least-
             significant bits starting off PLen (and that are zeros) are
             omitted.  If D = 1, the field length is one octet.  This
             field is present only when M = 0.

   Realm     The Realm that is associated with the advertised Mobile
             Router HoA and prefix.  If empty, MUST be set to '\0'.  For
             realm encoding and an optional compression scheme, refer to
             Section 4.2.  This field is present only when M = 0.












Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 35]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


5.6.  Home Test Init Message

   This message is sent from the MR to the CR when performing the RR
   procedure.  The source and destination IP addresses are set to the
   MR's HoA and the CR's HoA, respectively.  The UDP source port MAY be
   randomly chosen.  The UDP destination port is 434.

     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      |   Reserved    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
    |                          Home Init Cookie                     |
    +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      24

   Reserved  Set to zero; MUST be ignored on reception.

   Home Init Cookie

             64-bit field that contains a random value, the Home Init
             Cookie.

5.7.  Care-of Test Init Message

   This message is sent from the MR to the CR when performing the RR
   procedure.  The source and destination IP addresses are set to the
   MR's CoA and the CR's HoA, respectively.  The UDP source port MAY be
   randomly chosen.  The UDP destination port is 434.

     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      |   Reserved    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
    |                       Care-of Init Cookie                     |
    +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      25

   Reserved  Set to zero; MUST be ignored on reception.





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 36]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Care-of Init Cookie

             64-bit field that contains a random value, the Care-of Init
             Cookie.

5.8.  Home Test Message

   This message is sent from the CR to the MR when performing the RR
   procedure as a reply to the Home Test Init message.  The source and
   destination IP addresses, as well as UDP ports, are the reverse of
   those in the Home Test Init message for which this message is
   constructed.  As such, the UDP source port is always 434.

     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      |   Reserved    |         Nonce Index           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                    Home Init Cookie                           +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                    Home Keygen Token                          +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      26

   Reserved  Set to zero; MUST be ignored on reception.

   Nonce Index

             This field will be echoed back by the MR to the CR in a
             subsequent Registration Request's authentication extension.

   Home Init Cookie

             64-bit field that contains a random value, the Home Init
             Cookie.

   Home Keygen Token

             This field contains the 64-bit home keygen token used in
             the RR procedure.  Generated from cookie + nonce.






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 37]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


5.9.  Care-of Test Message

   This message is sent from the CR to the MR when performing the RR
   procedure as a reply to the Care-of Test Init message.  The source
   and destination IP addresses, as well as UDP ports, are the reverse
   of those in the Care-of Test Init message for which this message is
   constructed.  As such, the UDP source port is always 434.

     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      |   Reserved    |         Nonce Index           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                    Care-of Init Cookie                        +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                    Care-of Keygen Token                       +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type      27

   Reserved  Set to zero; MUST be ignored on reception.

   Care-of Nonce Index

             This field will be echoed back by the MR to the CR in a
             subsequent Registration Request's authentication extension.

   Care-of Init Cookie

             64-bit field that contains a random value, the Care-of Init
             Cookie.

   Care-of Keygen Token

             This field contains the 64-bit care-of keygen token used in
             the RR procedure.  Generated from cookie + nonce.











Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 38]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


6.  Special Considerations

6.1.  NATs and Stateful Firewalls

   Mechanisms described in Mobile IP NAT traversal [RFC3519] allow the
   HA to work with MRs situated behind a NAT device or a stateful
   firewall.  Furthermore, the HA may also detect whether a NAT device
   is located between the mobile node and the HA.  The MR may also
   explicitly state that it is behind a NAT or firewall on all
   interfaces, and this information is passed on to the other MRs with
   the Info field in the Route Optimization Prefix Advertisement
   Extension (Section 5.5).  The HA may also detect NAT and inform the
   registering MR via the 'N' flag in the Route Optimization Reply
   Extension (Section 5.2).  In the case where one or both of the
   routers is known to be behind a NAT or is similarly impaired (not
   able to accept incoming connections), the tunnel establishment
   procedure needs to take this into account.

   In the case where the MR is behind a NAT (or firewall) and the CR is
   not, the MR will, when the tunnel has been established, send
   keepalive messages (ICMP echo requests) through the tunnel.  Until a
   reply has been received, the tunnel SHOULD NOT be considered active.
   Once a reply has been received, NAT mapping is in place, and traffic
   can be sent.

   The source address may change due to NAT in CoTI and Registration
   Request messages.  This does not affect the process -- the hash
   values are calculated by the translated address, and the Registration
   Request will also appear from the same translated address.

   Unlike communication with the HA, in the case of route optimization,
   the path used for signaling is not used for tunneled packets, as
   signaling always uses HoAs, and the MR <-> CR tunnel is from CoA to
   CoA.  It is assumed that even though port numbers may change, NAT
   processing rarely allocates more than one external IP address to a
   single internal address; thus, the IP address seen in the
   Registration Request and tunnel packets remains the same.  However,
   the UDP source port number may be different in the Registration
   Request and incoming tunnel packets, due to port translation.  This
   must not cause an error situation -- the CR MUST be able to accept
   tunneling packets from a different UDP source port than what was used
   in the Registration Request.

   Since MRs may have multiple interfaces connecting to several
   different networks, it might be possible that specific MRs may only
   be able to perform route optimization using specific CoA pairs,
   obtained from specific networks -- for example, in a case where two
   MRs have an interface behind the same NAT.  A similar case may be



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 39]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   applicable to nested NATs.  In such cases, the MR MAY attempt to
   detect eligible CoA pairs by performing a registration and attempting
   to establish a tunnel (sending keepalives) with each CoA listed in
   the Registration Reply's Care-of Address Extension.  The eligible
   pairs should be recorded in the Route Optimization Cache.  If a
   tunnel cannot be established with any CoAs, the MR MAY attempt to
   repeat the procedure with alternative interfaces.  The above
   information on network topology can also be configured on the MRs
   either statically or via some external feedback mechanism.

   If both the MR and the CR are behind two separate NATs, some sort of
   proxy or hole-punching technique may be applicable.  This is out of
   scope for this document.

6.2.  Handling of Concurrent Handovers

   If both the MR and the CR move at the same time, this causes no
   issues from the signaling perspective, as all requests are always
   sent from a CoA to HoAs.  Thus, the recipient will always receive the
   request and can send the reply.  This applies even in break-before-
   make situations where both the MR and the CR get disconnected at the
   same time -- once the connectivity is restored, one endpoint of the
   signaling messages is always the HoA of the respective router, and it
   is up to the HA to provide reachability.

6.3.  Foreign Agents

   Since foreign agents have been dropped from work related to Network
   Mobility for Mobile IPv4, they are not considered here.

6.4.  Multiple Home Agents

   MRs can negotiate and perform route optimization without the
   assistance of an HA -- if they can discover each other's existence
   and thus know where to send registration messages.  This document
   only addresses a logically single HA that distributes network prefix
   information to the MRs.  Problems arise from possible trust
   relationships; in this document, the HA serves as a way to provide
   verification that a specific network is managed by a specific router.

   If route optimization is desired between nodes attached to separate
   HAs, there are several possibilities.  Note that standard high-
   availability redundancy protocols, such as the Virtual Router
   Redundancy Protocol (VRRP), can be utilized; however, in such a case,
   the HA is still a single logical entity, even if it consists of more
   than a single node.





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 40]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Several possibilities exist for achieving route optimization between
   MRs attached to separate HAs, such as a new discovery/probing
   protocol or routing protocol between HAs or DNS SRV records, or a
   common Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
   architecture.  There is already a framework for HA to retrieve
   information from AAA, so it can be considered the most viable
   possibility.  See Section 6.6 for information on a possible way to
   generalize the method.

   Any discovery/probing protocols are out of scope for this document.

6.5.  Mutualness of Route Optimization

   The procedure as specified is asymmetric; that is, if bidirectional
   route optimization is desired while maintaining consistency, the
   route optimization (RR check and registration) has to be performed in
   both directions, but this is not strictly necessary.  This is
   primarily a policy decision, depending on how often the mobile
   prefixes are reconfigured.

   Consider the case where two networks, A and B, are handled by MRs A
   and B, respectively.  If the routers are set up in such a fashion
   that route optimization is triggered when the router is forwarding a
   packet destined to a network prefix in the Route Optimization Cache,
   the following occurs if a node in network A starts sending ICMP echo
   requests (ping packets) to a node in network B.

   MR A sees the incoming ICMP echo request packet from the local
   network destined to network B. Since network B exists in MR A's Route
   Optimization Cache, the route optimization process is triggered.  The
   original packet is forwarded via the reverse tunnel toward the HA as
   normal.

   MR A completes the RR procedure and registration with MR B, which
   thus becomes a CR for MR A.  A tunnel is created between the routers.
   MR B updates its routing tables so that network A is reachable via
   the MR A <-> MR B tunnel.

   The traffic pattern is now such that packets from network B to
   network A are sent over the direct tunnel, but the packets from A to
   B are transmitted via the HA and reverse tunnels.  The echo reply
   that the node in network B sends toward network A triggers the route
   optimization at MR B in similar fashion.  As such, MR B now performs
   its own registration toward MR A.  Upon completion, MR B notices that
   a tunnel to MR A already exists, and updates its routing table so
   that network A is now reachable via the (existing) MR A <-> MR B
   tunnel.  From this point onward, traffic is bidirectional.




Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 41]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   In this scenario, if MR A does NOT wait for a separate route
   optimization process (RR check and registration) from MR B, but
   instead simply updates its routing table to reach network B via the
   tunnel, problems may arise if MR B has started to manage another
   network, B', before the information has been propagated to MR A.  The
   end result is that MR B starts to receive packets from network A to
   network B' via the HA and to network B via the direct tunnel.  If
   reverse path checking or a similar mechanism is in use on MR B, some
   of the packets from network A could be black-holed.

   Whether to perform this mutual registration or not thus depends on
   the situation, and whether MRs are going to start managing additional
   network prefixes during operation.

6.6.  Extensibility

   The design considerations include several mechanisms that might not
   be strictly necessary if route optimization were only desired between
   individual customer sites in a managed network.  The registration
   procedure (with the optional return routability part), which allows
   CRs to learn an MR's CoAs, is not strictly necessary; the CoAs could
   have been provided by the HA directly.

   However, this approach allows the method to be extended to a more
   generic route optimization.  The primary driver for having an HA to
   work as a centralized information distributer is to provide MRs with
   not only the knowledge of the other routers, but with information on
   which networks are managed by which routers.

   The HA provides the information on all feasible nodes with which it
   is possible to establish route optimization.  If representing a whole
   mobile network is not necessary -- in effect, the typical mobile node
   <-> correspondent node situation -- the mechanisms in this document
   work just as well; the only problem is discovering whether the target
   correspondent node can provide route optimization capability.  This
   can be performed by not including any prefixes in the information
   extension -- just the HoA of the MR.

   In addition, with route optimization for a single node, checks for
   whether an MR is allowed to represent specific networks are
   unnecessary, since there are none.

   Correspondent node/router discovery protocols (whether they are based
   on probing or a centralized directory beyond the single HA) are
   outside the scope of this document.






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 42]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


6.7.  Load Balancing

   This design simply provides the possibility of creating optimal paths
   between MRs; it doesn't dictate what the user traffic using these
   paths should be.  One possible approach in helping facilitate load
   balancing and utilizing all available paths is presented in
   [MIPv4FLOW], which effectively allows for multiple CoAs for a single
   HoA.  In addition, per-tunnel load balancing is possible by using
   separate CoAs for separate tunnels.

7.  Scalability

   Home agent-assisted route optimization scalability issues stem from
   the general Mobile IPv4 architecture, which is based on tunnels.
   Creating, maintaining, and destroying tunnel interfaces can cause
   load on the MRs.  However, the MRs can always fall back to normal,
   reverse-tunneled routing if resource constraints are apparent.

   If there are a large number of optimization-capable prefixes,
   maintaining state for all of these may be an issue also, due to
   limits on routing table sizes.

   Registration responses from the HA to the MR may provide information
   on a large number of network prefixes.  If thousands of networks are
   involved, the Registration Reply messages are bound to grow very
   large.  The prefix and realm compression mechanisms defined in
   Section 4 mitigate this problem to an extent.  There will, however,
   be some practical upper limit, after which some other delivery
   mechanism for the prefix information will be needed.






















Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 43]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


8.  Example Signaling Scenarios

8.1.  Registration Request

   The following example assumes that there are three mobile routers --
   MR A, MR B, and MR C -- each managing network prefixes A, B, and C.
   At the beginning, no networks are registered with the HA.  Any AAA
   processing at the HA is omitted from the diagram.

  +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------------+
  | [MR A] | | [MR B] | | [MR C] | | [Home Agent] |
  +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------------+
     |          |          |          |
     x------------------------------->|  Registration Request
     |          |          |          |  includes Mobile Router
     |          |          |          |  Route Optimization
     |          |          |          |  Capability Extension
     |          |          |          |
     |<-------------------------------x  Registration response;
     |          |          |          |  no known networks from HA
     |          |          |          |  in response
     |          |          |          |
     |          x-------------------->|  Registration Request similar
     |          |          |          |  to the one sent by MR A
     |          |          |          |
     |          |<--------------------x  Registration Reply includes
     |          |          |          |  network A in Route Optimization
     |          |          |          |  Prefix Advertisement Extension
     |          |          |          |
     |          |          x--------->|  Registration Request similar
     |          |          |          |  to the one sent by MR A
     |          |          |          |
     |          |          |<---------x  Registration Reply includes
     |          |          |          |  networks A and B in Route
     |          |          |          |  Optimization Prefix
     |          |          |          |  Advertisement Extension.
     |          |          |          |  Network B is sent in
     |          |          |          |  compressed form.
     |          |          |          |












Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 44]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


8.2.  Route Optimization with Return Routability

   The following example has the same network setup as that in
   Section 8.1 -- three MRs, each corresponding to their respective
   network.  Node A is in network A, and Node C is in network C.

   At the beginning, none of the MRs know each other's KRms.  If the
   KRms were pre-shared or provisioned with some other method, the
   Return Routability messages could be omitted.  Signaling as described
   in Section 8.1 has occurred; thus, MR A is not aware of the other
   networks, and MR C is aware of networks A and B.

  ======= Traffic inside Mobile IP tunnel to/from HA
  =-=-=-= Traffic inside Mobile IP tunnel between MRs
  ------- Traffic outside Mobile IP tunnel

+----------+ +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +----------+
| [Node A] | | [MR A] | | [HA] | | [MR C] | | [Node C] |
+----------+ +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +----------+
   |            |          |         |       |
   x------------O==========O=========O------>| Mobile Router A is
   |            |          |         |       | unaware of network C;
   |            |          |         |       | thus, nothing happens
   |            |          |         |       |
   |<-----------O==========O=========O-------x Mobile Router C
   |            |          |         |       | notices packet to
   |            |          |         |       | network A - begins
   |            |          |         |       | route optimization
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            |          |         |       | Return Routability (if
   |            |          |         |       | no pre-shared KRms)
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            |<=========O---------x       | CoTI
   |            |<=========O=========x       | HoTI
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            x==========O-------->|       | CoT
   |            x==========O========>|       | HoT
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            |          |         |       | KRm between MR A <-> C
   |            |          |         |       | established
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            |<=========O---------x       | Registration Request
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            x--------->|         |       | Registration Request
   |            |          |         |       | to HA due to MR A
   |            |          |         |       | being unaware of
   |            |          |         |       | network C.
   |            |          |         |       | Solicit bit set.



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 45]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   |            |          |         |       |
   |            |<---------x         |       | Registration Reply
   |            |          |         |       | contains info on
   |            |          |         |       | network A
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            x==========O-------->|       | Registration Reply
   |            |          |         |       | includes MR A's CoA in
   |            |          |         |       | Care-of Address
   |            |          |         |       | Extension
   |            |          |         |       |
   |            |<= = = = =O= = = ==>|       | Optional mutual
   |            |          |         |       | registration from
   |            |          |         |       | MR A to MR C
   |            |          |         |       | (same procedure as above,
   |            |          |         |       | multiple packets);
   |            |          |         |       | possible keepalive checks
   |            |          |         |       |
   |<-----------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=-==-=-O-------x Packet from Node C -> A
   |            |          |         |       | routed to direct tunnel
   |            |          |         |       | at MR C, based on
   |            |          |         |       | MR C now knowing MR A's
   |            |          |         |       | CoA and tunnel being up
   |            |          |         |       |
   x------------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=-==-=-O------>| Packet from Node A -> C
   |            |          |         |       | routed to direct tunnel
   |            |          |         |       | at MR A, based on MR A
   |            |          |         |       | now knowing MR C's CoA
   |            |          |         |       | and tunnel being up

8.3.  Handovers

   In this signaling example, MR C changes its CoA while route
   optimization between MR A and MR C is operating and data is being
   transferred.  Cases where the handover is graceful ("make before
   break") and ungraceful ("break before make") both occur in similar
   fashion, except that in the graceful version no packets are lost.
   This diagram considers the case where MR C gets immediate
   notification of lost connectivity, e.g., due to a link status
   indication.  MR A would eventually notice the breakdown, due to
   keepalive messages failing.











Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 46]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   ======= Traffic inside Mobile IP tunnel to/from HA
   =-=-=-= Traffic inside Mobile IP tunnel between MRs
   ------- Traffic outside Mobile IP tunnel

 +----------+ +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +----------+
 | [Node A] | | [MR A] | | [HA] | | [MR C] | | [Node C] |
 +----------+ +--------+ +------+ +--------+ +----------+
    |            |          |         |       |
    x------------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=-==-=-O------>| Nodes A and C are
    |<-----------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=-==-=-O-------x exchanging traffic
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            |          xxxxxxxxxxx       | Break occurs: MR C
    |            |          |         |       | loses connectivity to
    |            |          |         |       | current attachment point
    |            |          |         |       |
    x------------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=->x   |       | Traffic from A -> C
    |            |          |         |       | lost, and
    |            |          |   x<=-=-O-------x vice versa
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            |          |<--------x       | MR C finds a new
    |            |          |         |       | point of attachment,
    |            |          |         |       | registers with the HA,
    |            |          |         |       | clears routing tables
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            |          x-------->|       | Registration Reply
    |            |          |         |       |
    x------------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=->x   |       | Traffic from A -> C lost
    |            |          |         |       | (reverts to routing via
    |            |          |         |       | HA if enough keepalives
    |            |          |         |       | fail)
    |            |          |         |       |
    |<-----------O==========O=========O-------| Traffic from C -> A
    |            |          |         |       | sent via HA
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            O<=========O---------x       | CoTI message
    |            |          |         |       | (partial RR check)
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            x==========O-------->|       | CoT message
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            |<=========O---------x       | Registration Request
    |            |          |         |       | reusing newly calculated
    |            |          |         |       | KRm
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            x==========O-------->|       | Registration Reply
    |            |          |         |       |






Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 47]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


    |            O<=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=x       | First keepalive check if
    |            |          |         |       | using UDP encapsulation;
    |            |          |         |       | also creates holes in
    |            x=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>|       | firewalls
    |            |          |         |       |
    |            |          |         |       |
    x------------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=-==-=-O------>| Traffic from A -> C
    |            |          |         |       | forwarded directly again
    |            |          |         |       |
    |<-----------O=-=-=-==-=-=-=-==-=-O-------x Traffic from C -> A
    |            |          |         |       | switches back to direct
    |            |          |         |       | tunnel
    |            |          |         |       |

9.  Protocol Constants

      MAX_NONCE_LIFETIME              240 seconds
      MAX_TOKEN_LIFETIME              210 seconds
      MAX_UPDATE_RATE                 5 times

10.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned rules for the existing registries "Mobile IP
   Message Types" and "Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages",
   specified in RFC 5944 [RFC5944].  New Mobile IP message types and
   extension code allocations have been made for the messages and
   extensions listed in Section 5.

   The route optimization authentication processing requires four new
   message type numbers.  The new Mobile IP Message types are listed
   below, in Table 1.

                   +-------+---------------------------+
                   | Value | Name                      |
                   +-------+---------------------------+
                   | 24    | Home Test Init message    |
                   | 25    | Care-of Test Init message |
                   | 26    | Home Test message         |
                   | 27    | Care-of Test message      |
                   +-------+---------------------------+

         Table 1: New Values and Names for Mobile IP Message Types









Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 48]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Three new registration message extension types are required and
   listed in Table 2.  The first type, 153, is skippable and has been
   allocated from range 128-255.  The other two, 49 and 50, are
   non-skippable and have been allocated from range 0-127, with 49 being
   of the "short" format and 50 being of the "long" format.  None of the
   messages are permitted for notification messages.

      +--------------+---------------------------------------------+
      | Value        | Name                                        |
      +--------------+---------------------------------------------+
      | 153, 128-255 | Mobile Router Route Optimization Indication |
      | 49, 0-127    | Route Optimization Extensions               |
      | 50, 0-127    | Route Optimization Data                     |
      +--------------+---------------------------------------------+

         Table 2: New Values and Names for Extensions in Mobile IP
                           Registration Messages

   In addition, the registry "Code Values for Mobile IP Registration
   Reply Messages" has been modified.  A new success code, 2, should be
   allocated as follows:

   2         Concurrent registration (pre-accept)

   In addition, a new allocation range has been created as "Error Codes
   from the Correspondent Node", subject to the policy of Expert Review
   [RFC5226].  The range is 201-210.  Three new Registration Reply codes
   have been allocated from this range.  They are specified in Table 3,
   below:

                  +-------+-----------------------------+
                  | Value | Name                        |
                  +-------+-----------------------------+
                  | 201   | Expired Home nonce Index    |
                  | 202   | Expired Care-of nonce Index |
                  | 203   | Expired nonces              |
                  +-------+-----------------------------+

             Table 3: New Code Values and Names for Mobile IP
                        Registration Reply Messages











Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 49]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   Three new number spaces were required for the subtypes of the
   extensions in Table 2.  A new registry, named "Route Optimization
   Types and Subtypes", has been created with an allocation policy of
   RFC Required [RFC5226].  The registration entries include Type,
   Subtype, and Name.  Type and Subtype have a range of 0-255.  Types
   are references to registration message extension types.  Subtypes are
   allocated initially as in Table 4, below:

   +------+---------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | Type | Subtype | Name                                             |
   +------+---------+--------------------------------------------------+
   | 153  | 0       | Reserved                                         |
   | 153  | 1       | Mobile Router Route Optimization Capability      |
   |      |         | Extension                                        |
   | 49   | 0       | Reserved                                         |
   | 49   | 1       | Route Optimization Reply                         |
   | 49   | 2       | Mobile-Correspondent Authentication Extension    |
   | 49   | 3       | Care-of Address Extension                        |
   | 50   | 0       | Reserved                                         |
   | 50   | 1       | Route Optimization Prefix Advertisement          |
   |      |         | Extension                                        |
   +------+---------+--------------------------------------------------+

     Table 4: Initial Values and Names for Registry Route Optimization
                            Types and Subtypes

11.  Security Considerations

   There are two primary security issues: One issue relates to the RR
   check, which establishes that a specific CoA is, indeed, managed by a
   specific HoA.  The other issue is trust relationships and an
   arbitrary router claiming to represent an arbitrary network.

   The end-user traffic can be protected using normal IPsec mechanisms.

11.1.  Return Routability

   The RR check's security has been vetted with Mobile IPv6.  There are
   no major differences, apart from two issues: connectivity check and
   replay attack protection.  The connectivity check is conducted with a
   separate ICMP message exchange.  Replay attack protection is achieved
   with Mobile IPv4 timestamps in the Registration Request's
   Identification field, in contrast to the sequence numbers used in
   Mobile IPv6.

   The RR procedure does not establish any kind of state information on
   the CR; this mitigates denial-of-service attacks.  State information
   is only maintained after a Registration Request has been accepted.



Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 50]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


11.2.  Trust Relationships

   The network of trust relationships in home agent-assisted route
   optimization solves possible trust issues: An arbitrary CR can trust
   an arbitrary MR that it is indeed the proper route to reach an
   arbitrary mobile network.

   It is assumed that all MRs have a trust relationship with the HA.
   Thus, they trust information provided by the HA.

   The HA provides information matching HoAs and network prefixes.  Each
   MR trusts this information.

   MRs may perform the RR procedure between each other.  This creates a
   trusted association between the MR's HoA and CoA.  The MR also claims
   to represent a specific network.  This information is not trustworthy
   as such.

   The claim can be verified by checking the HoA <-> network prefix
   information received, either earlier, or due to an on-demand request,
   from the HA.  If they match, the MR's claim is authentic.  If the
   network is considered trusted, a policy decision can be made to skip
   this check.  Exact definitions on situations where such decisions can
   be made are out of scope for this document.  The RECOMMENDED general
   practice is to perform the check.

12.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Alexandru Petrescu for constructive comments and support.
   Thanks to Jyrki Soini and Kari Laihonen for initial reviews.  This
   work was supported by TEKES as part of the Future Internet program of
   TIVIT (Finnish Strategic Centre for Science, Technology and
   Innovation in the field of ICT).

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2003]    Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
                October 1996.

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

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





Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 51]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


   [RFC2784]    Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
                Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
                March 2000.

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

   [RFC5177]    Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu,
                "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4",
                RFC 5177, April 2008.

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

   [RFC5944]    Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4,
                Revised", RFC 5944, November 2010.

13.2.  Informative References

   [MIP-RO]     Perkins, C. and D. Johnson, "Route Optimization in
                Mobile IP", Work in Progress, September 2001.

   [MIPv4FLOW]  Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Tsirtsis, G., Soliman,
                H., and A. Petrescu, "Flow Binding Support for Mobile
                IPv4", Work in Progress, February 2012.

   [RFC1035]    Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC3543]    Glass, S. and M. Chandra, "Registration Revocation in
                Mobile IPv4", RFC 3543, August 2003.

   [RFC4086]    Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
                "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106,
                RFC 4086, June 2005.

   [RFC4282]    Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
                Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.

   [RFC6275]    Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
                Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.








Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 52]

RFC 6521                          HAaRO                    February 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Antti Makela
   Aalto University
   Department of Communications and Networking (Comnet)
   P.O. Box 13000
   FIN-00076 Aalto
   FINLAND

   EMail: antti.t.makela@iki.fi


   Jouni Korhonen
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   FI-02600 Espoo
   FINLAND

   EMail: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
































Makela & Korhonen             Experimental                     [Page 53]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/