draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-02.txt   draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03.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: March 27, 2008 K. Leung Expires: April 7, 2008 K. Leung
Cisco Cisco
September 24, 2007 October 5, 2007
Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-02.txt draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03.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 March 27, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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
implement extensions to some protocols and distinguish themselves implement extensions to some protocols and distinguish themselves
from other vendors. These messages are clearly marked by a Vendor ID from other vendors. These messages are clearly marked by a Vendor ID
that identifies the vendor. A particular vendor's implementation that identifies the vendor. A particular vendor's implementation
identifies the vendor extension by recognizing the Vendor ID. identifies the vendor extension by recognizing the Vendor ID.
Implementations that do not recognize the Vendor ID either discard or Implementations that do not recognize the Vendor ID either discard or
skipping to change at page 3, line 30 skipping to change at page 3, line 30
This document defines a new mobility option, the Vendor Specific This document defines a new mobility option, the Vendor Specific
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 protocol extensions can cause serious
interoperability issues and may have adverse operational impact like interoperability issues and may in addition have adverse operational
overhead on hosts and routers, network overload and congestion if impact, if they are not designed and used carefully. The vendor-
they are not used carefully. The vendor specific extensions MUST be specific option described in this document is meant to support simple
standardized in the IETF if they are to be deployed in a large scale use cases where it is sufficient to include some vendor data in the
or if multiple vendors are involved in a particular system or standardized Mobile IPv6 protocol exchanges. The vendor-specific
deployment. Experience has shown that vendor specific extensions option is not suitable for more complex vendor extensions that modify
benefit from IETF review and standardization. Mobile IPv6 itself. Although these options allow vendors to
piggyback additional data onto Mobile IPv6 message exchanges, RFC
3775 [2] requires that unrecognized options be ignored and that the
end systems be able to process the remaining parts of the message
correctly. Extensions that use the vendor specifc mobility option
should require an indication that the option was processed, in the
response, using the vendor specific mobility option.
Vendors are generally encouraged to bring their protocol extensions
to the IETF for review and standardization. Complex vendor
extensions that modify Mobile IPv6 itself, will see large-scale
deployment or involve industry consortia or other multi-vendor
organizations MUST be standardized in the IETF. Past experience has
shown that such extensions of IETF protocols are critically dependent
on 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
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 30 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/