draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt   draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-02.txt 
MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli
Internet-Draft Azaire Networks Internet-Draft Azaire Networks
Intended status: Standards Track A. Patel Intended status: Standards Track A. Patel
Expires: August 25, 2007 K. Leung Expires: March 27, 2008 K. Leung
Cisco Cisco
February 21, 2007 September 24, 2007
Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
There is a need for vendor specific extensions to Mobility Header There is a need for vendor specific extensions to Mobility Header
messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol
for research or deployment purposes. This document defines a new for research or deployment purposes. This document defines a new
vendor specific mobility option. vendor specific mobility option.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Vendor specific messages have traditionally allowed vendors to Vendor specific messages have traditionally allowed vendors to
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
Mobility option, which can be carried in any Mobility Header message. Mobility option, which can be carried in any Mobility Header message.
The Vendor Specific mobility option MUST be used only with a Mobility The Vendor Specific mobility option MUST be used only with a Mobility
Header message. Mobility options, by definition, can be skipped if Header message. Mobility options, by definition, can be skipped if
an implementation does not recognize the mobility option type [2]. an implementation does not recognize the mobility option type [2].
The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO [3] The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO [3]
and Proxy MIPv6 [4] since these protocols also use Mobility Header and Proxy MIPv6 [4] since these protocols also use Mobility Header
messages. messages.
Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious Vendor specific extensions to protocols can cause serious
interoperability issues if they are not used carefully. The vendor interoperability issues and may have adverse operational impact like
specific extensions MUST be standardized in the IETF if they are to overhead on hosts and routers, network overload and congestion if
be deployed in a large scale or if multiple vendors are involved in a they are not used carefully. The vendor specific extensions MUST be
particular system or deployment. Experience has shown that vendor standardized in the IETF if they are to be deployed in a large scale
specific extensions benefit from IETF review and standardization. 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 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [1]. document are to be interpreted as described in [1].
3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option
The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
the Binding Authorization Data option. Multiple Vendor Specific the Binding Authorization Data option. Multiple Vendor Specific
mobility options MAY be present in a Mobility Header message. mobility options MAY be present in a Mobility Header message.
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID | | Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | Sub-Type | Data.......
. .
. Data .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type Type
A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility
option. option.
Length Length
A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding A 8-bit field indicating the length of the option in octets
the Type and Length fields. excluding the Type and the Length fields. All other fields are
included.
Vendor ID Vendor ID
The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the Vendor/ The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA
Organization as defined by IANA. maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry [5].
Sub-type
A 8-bit field indicating the type of vendor specific information
carried in the option. The administration of the Sub-type is done
by the Vendor.
Data Data
Vendor specific data that is carried in this message. Vendor specific data that is carried in this message.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The Vendor Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner The Vendor Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner
similar to Binding Updates and Binding acknowledgements if it carries similar to Binding Updates and Binding acknowledgements if it carries
information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can
affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent
node. node. In particular the messages containing the Vendor Specific
mobility option MUST be integrity protected.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
The Vendor Specific mobility option defined in Section 3, should have The Vendor Specific mobility option defined in Section 3, should have
the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options [2]. the type value allocated from the same space as the Mobility Options
registry created by RFC 3775 [2].
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with
whom the contents of this document were discussed first. whom the contents of this document were discussed first.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 34
[2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in [2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, [3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
"Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
January 2005. January 2005.
[4] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", [4] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 (work in progress), draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 (work in progress), March 2007.
January 2007.
[5] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Private Enterprise
Numbers", http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers .
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Vijay Devarapalli Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks Azaire Networks
4800 Great America Pkwy 4800 Great America Pkwy
Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA USA
Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 32 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/