MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli Internet-Draft Azaire Networks Intended status: Standards Track A. Patel Expires:
June 14,August 25, 2007 K. Leung Cisco December 11, 2006February 21, 2007 Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-00.txtdraft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14,August 25, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).IETF Trust (2007). Abstract There is a need for vendor specific extensions to Mobility Header messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol for research or deployment purposes. This document defines a new vendor specific mobility option. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction Vendor specific messages have traditionally allowed vendors to implement extensions to some protocols and distinguish themselves from other vendors. These messages are clearly marked by a Vendor ID that identifies the vendor. A particular vendor's implementation identifies the vendor extension by recognizing the Vendor ID. Implementations that do not recognize the Vendor ID either discard or skip processing the message. Mobile IPv6  is being deployed and there is a need for vendor specific extensions to Mobility Header messages so that vendors are able to extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research or deployment purposes. This document defines a new mobility option, the Vendor Specific Mobility option, which can be carried in any Mobility Header message. The Vendor Specific mobility option MUST be used only with a Mobility Header message. Mobility options, by definition, can be skipped if an implementation does not recognize the mobility option type . The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO implementations . and Proxy MIPv6  since these protocols also use Mobility Header messages. Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious interoperability issues if they are not used carefully. The vendor specific extensions MUST be standardized in the IETF if they are to be deployed in a large scale or if multiple vendors are involved in a particular system or deployment. Experience has shown that vendor specific extensions benefit from IETF review and standardization. 2. Terminology 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 . 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2. If the Mobility Header message includes a Binding Authorization Data option , then the Vendor Specific mobility option should appear before the Binding Authorization Data option. Multiple Vendor Specific mobility options MAY be present in a Mobility Header 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Data . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility option. Length A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding the Type and Length fields. Vendor ID The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/ Organization as defined by IANA. Data Vendor specific data that is carried in this message. 4. Security Considerations The Vendor Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner similar to Binding Updates and Binding acknowledgements if it carries information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent node. 5. IANA Considerations The Vendor Specific mobility option defined in Section 3, should have the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options . 6. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with whom the contents of this document were discussed first. 7. References 7.1. Normative References  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 7.2. Informative References  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, January 2005.  Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 (work in progress), January 2007. Authors' Addresses Vijay Devarapalli Azaire Networks 4800 Great America Pkwy Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Alpesh Patel Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA Email: email@example.com Kent Leung Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETYSOCIETY, 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 email@example.com. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).