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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5679

MIPSHOP WG                                                     G. Bajko
Internet Draft                                                    Nokia
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                     October 17, 2008
Expires: April 16, 2009



            Locating IEEE 802.21 Mobility Servers using DNS
                draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery-04

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2009.

Abstract

   This document defines application service tags that allow service
   location without relying on rigid domain naming conventions, and DNS
   procedures for discovering servers which provide IEEE 802.21
   [IEEE802.21] defined Mobility Services. Such Mobility Services are
   used to assist a Mobile Node (MN) supporting IEEE 802.21
   [IEEE802.21], in handover preparation (network discovery) and
   handover decision (network selection). The services addressed by
   this document are the Media Independent Handover Services defined in
   [IEEE802.21].

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.


G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 1]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

Terminology and abbreviations used in this document

   Mobility Services: comprises of a set of different services provided
   by the network to mobile nodes to facilitate handover preparation
   and handover decision, as described in [IEEE802.21].

   Mobility Server: a network node providing IEEE 802.21 Mobility
   Services.

   MIH: Media Independent Handover, as defined in [IEEE802.21].

   MIH Service: IS, ES or CS type of service, as defined in
   [IEEE802.21].

   Application service:  is a generic term for some type of
   application, independent of the protocol that may be used to offer
   it. Each application service will be associated with an IANA-
   registered tag.

   Application protocol: is used to implement the application service.
   These are also associated with IANA-registered tags.

Table of Content

   1. Introduction....................................................2
   2. Discovering a Mobility Server...................................3
        2.1 Selecting a Mobility Service..............................3
        2.2 Selecting the transport protocol..........................4
        2.3 Determining the IP address and port.......................5
   3. IANA Considerations.............................................6
   4. Security Considerations.........................................6
   5. Normative References............................................6
   6. Informative References..........................................7
   7. Author's Address................................................7

1. Introduction

   IEEE 802.21 [IEEE802.21] defines three distinct service types to
   facilitate link layer handovers across heterogeneous technologies:

   a) Information Services (IS)
        IS provides a unified framework to the higher layer entities
        across the heterogeneous network environment to facilitate
        discovery and selection of multiple types of networks existing
        within a geographical area, with the objective to help the
        higher layer mobility protocols to acquire a global view of the
        heterogeneous networks and perform seamless handover across
        these networks.

   b) Event Services (ES)
        Events may indicate changes in state and transmission behavior
        of the physical, data link and logical link layers, or predict

G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 2]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

        state changes of these layers. The Event Service may also be
        used to indicate management actions or command status on the
        part of the network or some management entity.

   c) Command Services (CS)
        The command service enables higher layers to control the
        physical, data link, and logical link layers. The higher layers
        may control the reconfiguration or selection of an appropriate
        link through a set of handover commands.

   In IEEE terminology these services are called Media Independent
   Handover (MIH) services.
   While these services may be co-located, the different pattern and
   type of information they provide does not necessitate the co-
   location.

   "Service Management" service messages, i.e., MIH registration, MIH
   capability discovery and MIH event subscription messages, are
   considered as ES and CS when transporting MIH messages over L3
   transport.

   An MN may make use of any of these MIH service types separately or
   any combination of them.

   It is anticipated that a Mobility Server will not necessarily host
   all three of these MIH Services together, thus there is a need to
   discover the MIH Service types separately.

   This document defines a number of application service tags that
   allow service location without relying on rigid domain naming
   conventions.

2. Discovering a Mobility Server

   The procedures defined here assume that the MN knows the domain name
   of the network where it wants to locate a Mobility Server. The
   domain name of the network can either be pre-configured, discovered
   using DHCP or learned from a previous Information Service (IS) query
   [IEEE802.21] as described in [ID.ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution].
   The procedures defined here result in an IP address, port and
   transport protocol where the MN can contact the Mobility Server
   which hosts the service the MN is looking for.

2.1 Selecting a Mobility Service

   The MN should know the characteristics of the Mobility Services
   defined in [IEEE802.21] and based on that it should be able to
   select the service it wants to use to facilitate its handover. The
   services it can choose from are:
           - Information Service (IS)
           - Information Service over a secure connection (ISs)
           - Event Service (ES)

G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 3]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

           - Event Service over a secure connection (ESs)
           - Command Service (CS)
           - Command Service over a secure connection (CSs)

   The service identifiers for the services are "IS","ISs", "ES",
   "ESs", "CS" and "CSs" respectively.
   The server supporting any of the above services MUST support at
   least UDP and TCP as transport, as described in [ID.ietf-mipshop-
   mstp-solution]. SCTP and other transport protocols MAY also be
   supported.

2.2 Selecting the transport protocol

   After the desired service has been chosen, the client selects the
   transport protocol it prefers to use. Note, that transport selection
   may impact the handover performance.

   The services relevant for the task of transport protocol selection
   are those with NAPTR service fields with values "ID+M2X", where ID
   is the service identifier defined in the previous section and X is a
   letter that corresponds to a transport protocol supported by the
   domain. This specification defines M2U for UDP, M2T for TCP and M2S
   for SCTP.   This document also establishes an IANA registry for
   NAPTR service name to transport protocol mappings.

   These NAPTR [RFC3403] records provide a mapping from a domain to the
   SRV [RFC2782] record for contacting a server with the specific
   transport protocol in the NAPTR services field. The resource record
   will contain an empty regular expression and a replacement value,
   which indicates the domain name where the SRV record for that
   particular transport protocol can be found. If the server supports
   multiple transport protocols, there will be multiple NAPTR records,
   each with a different service value.  As per [RFC3403], the client
   discards any records whose services fields are not applicable.

   The MN MUST discard any service fields that identify a resolution
   service whose value is not "M2X", for values of X that indicate
   transport protocols supported by the client.  The NAPTR processing
   as described in RFC 3403 will result in the discovery of the most
   preferred transport protocol of the server that is supported by the
   client, as well as an SRV record for the server.

   As an example, consider a client that wishes to find IS service in
   the example.com domain. The client performs a NAPTR query for that
   domain, and the following NAPTR records are returned:

           order pref flags  service     regexp       replacement
   IN NAPTR  50   50   "s"  "IS+M2T"       ""  _IS._tcp.example.com
   IN NAPTR  90   50   "s"  "IS+M2U"       ""  _IS._udp.example.com

   This indicates that the domain does have a server providing IS
   services over TCP and UDP, in that order of preference. Since the

G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 4]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

   client supports TCP and UDP, TCP will be used, targeted to a host
   determined by an SRV lookup of _IS._tcp.example.com.  That lookup
   would return:

   ;;          Priority  Weight    Port        Target
        IN  SRV    0        1      XXXX   server1.example.com
        IN  SRV    0        2      XXXX   server2.example.com

   If no NAPTR records are found, the client constructs SRV queries for
   those transport protocols it supports, and does a query for each.
   Queries are done using the service identifier "_IS" for the
   Information Service, "_ES" for the Event Service and "_CS" for
   Command Service. A particular transport is supported if the query is
   successful.  The client MAY use any transport protocol it desires
   which is supported by the server.

   Note, that the regexp field in the NAPTR example above is empty.
   This document discourages the use of this field as its usage can be
   complex and error prone; and the discovery of the MIH services do
   not require the flexibility provided by this field over a static
   target present in the TARGET field.

   As another example, consider a client which wishes to find ES
   service over a secure connection. The client performs a NAPTR query
   for that domain, and the following NAPTR records are returned:

           order pref flags  service     regexp       replacement
   IN NAPTR  50   50   "s"  "ESs+M2T"       ""  _ESs._tcp.example.com
   IN NAPTR  90   50   "s"  "ESs+M2U"       ""  _ESs._udp.example.com

   This indicates that the domain does have a server providing ES
   services over a secure connection, in the above case TLSoverTCP and
   DTLSoverUDP.

   When a transport protocol is specified explicitly, the client will
   perform an SRV query for that specific transport using the service
   identifier of the Mobility Service.


2.3 Determining the IP address and port

   Once the server providing the desired service and the transport
   protocol has been determined, the next step is to determine the IP
   address and port.

   If TARGET is a numeric IP address, the MN uses that IP address and
   the already chosen transport to contact the server providing the
   desired service.

   If the TARGET was not a numeric IP address, then the MN performs an
   A and/or AAAA record lookup of the domain name, as appropriate. The


G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 5]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

   result will be a list of IP addresses, each of which can be
   contacted using the transport protocol determined previously.

   If the result of the SRV query contains a port number, then the MN
   SHOULD contact the server at that port number. If the SRV record did
   not contain a port number then the MN SHOULD contact the server at
   the default port number of that particular service. A default port
   number for MIH services is requested from IANA in [ID.ietf-mipshop-
   mstp-solution].

3. IANA considerations

   The usage of NAPTR records described here requires well known values
   for the service fields for each transport supported by Mobility
   Services. The table of mappings from service field values to
   transport protocols is to be maintained by IANA.

   The registration in the RFC MUST include the following information:

        Service Field: The service field being registered.

        Protocol: The specific transport protocol associated with that
        service field.  This MUST include the name and acronym for the
        protocol, along with reference to a document that describes the
        transport protocol.

        Name and Contact Information: The name, address, email address
        and telephone number for the person performing the
        registration.

   The following values have been placed into the registry:

   Service Fields               Protocol
      IS+M2T                        TCP
      ISs+M2T                TLSoverTCP (RFC 5246)
      IS+M2U                        UDP
      ISs+M2U               DTLSoverUDP (RFC 4347)
      IS+M2S                       SCTP
      ISs+M2S               TSLoverSCTP (RFC 3436)
      ES+M2T                        TCP
      ESs+M2T                TLSoverTCP (RFC 5246)
      ES+M2U                        UDP
      ESs+M2U               DTLSoverUDP (RFC 4347)
      ES+M2S                       SCTP
      ESs+M2S               TLSoverSCTP (RFC 3436)
      CS+M2T                        TCP
      CSs+M2T                TLSoverTCP (RFC 5246)
      CS+M2U                        UDP
      CSs+M2U               DTLSoverUDP (RFC 4347)
      CS+M2S                       SCTP
      CSs+M2S               TLSoverSCTP (RFC 3436)


G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 6]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

   New Service Fields are to be added via Standards Action as defined
   in [RFC5226].
   New entries to the table that specify additional transport protocols
   for the existing Service Fields may be registered by IANA on a First
   Come First Served' basis [RFC5226].

4. Security considerations

   A list of known threats to services using DNS is documented in
   [RFC3833]. For most of those identified threats, the DNS Security
   Extensions [RFC4033] does provide protection. It is therefore
   recommended to consider the usage of DNSSEC [RFC4033] and the
   aspects of DNSSEC Operational Practices [RFC4641] when deploying
   IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services.

   In deployments where DNSSEC usage is not feasible, measures should
   be taken to protect against forged DNS responses and cache poisoning
   as much as possible. Efforts in this direction are documented in
   [ID.ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience].


5. Normative References

   [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
       specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
       February 2000.

   [RFC3403] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
       Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
       October 2002.

   [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
       Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033,
       March 2005.

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


6. Informative References

   [IEEE802.21] IEEE 802.21 Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
       Networks: Media Independent Handover Services

   [RFC4641] Kolkman, O. and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational Practices",
       RFC 4641, September 2006.

   [RFC3833] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain
       Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.



G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 7]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

   [ID.ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution] Mobility Services Transport Protocol
       Design, Melia et al, April 2008, work in progress

   [ID.ietf-dnsext-forgery-resilience] Measures for making DNS more
       resilient against forged answers, Hubert et al, August 2008,
       work in progress


7. Author's Addresses

   Gabor Bajko
   gabor(dot)bajko(at)nokia(dot)com









































G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 8]

Locating Mobility Servers using DNS                     October 2008

   Full Copyright Statement

    Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


   Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.


   Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).






G. Bajko                   Expires 04/16/09                  [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/