draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03.txt   rfc5094.txt 
MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli Network Working Group V. Devarapalli
Internet-Draft Azaire Networks Request for Comments: 5094 Azaire Networks
Intended status: Standards Track A. Patel Category: Standards Track A. Patel
Expires: April 7, 2008 K. Leung K. Leung
Cisco Cisco
October 5, 2007 December 2007
Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03.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 Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2008. This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Vendor-Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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
skip processing the message. skip processing the message.
Mobile IPv6 [2] is being deployed and there is a need for vendor Mobile IPv6 [2] is being deployed and there is a need for vendor-
specific extensions to Mobility Header messages so that vendors are specific extensions to Mobility Header messages so that vendors are
able to extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research or deployment able to extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research or deployment
purposes. purposes.
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 protocol extensions can cause serious Vendor-specific protocol extensions can cause serious
interoperability issues and may in addition have adverse operational interoperability issues and may in addition have adverse operational
impact, if they are not designed and used carefully. The vendor- impact, if they are not designed and used carefully. The vendor-
specific option described in this document is meant to support simple specific option described in this document is meant to support simple
use cases where it is sufficient to include some vendor data in the use cases where it is sufficient to include some vendor data in the
standardized Mobile IPv6 protocol exchanges. The vendor-specific standardized Mobile IPv6 protocol exchanges. The vendor-specific
option is not suitable for more complex vendor extensions that modify option is not suitable for more complex vendor extensions that modify
Mobile IPv6 itself. Although these options allow vendors to Mobile IPv6 itself. Although these options allow vendors to
piggyback additional data onto Mobile IPv6 message exchanges, RFC piggyback additional data onto Mobile IPv6 message exchanges, RFC
3775 [2] requires that unrecognized options be ignored and that the 3775 [2] requires that unrecognized options be ignored and that the
end systems be able to process the remaining parts of the message end systems be able to process the remaining parts of the message
correctly. Extensions that use the vendor specifc mobility option correctly. Extensions that use the vendor-specific mobility option
should require an indication that the option was processed, in the should require an indication that the option was processed, in the
response, using the vendor specific mobility option. response, using the vendor-specific mobility option.
Vendors are generally encouraged to bring their protocol extensions Vendors are generally encouraged to bring their protocol extensions
to the IETF for review and standardization. Complex vendor to the IETF for review and standardization. Complex vendor
extensions that modify Mobile IPv6 itself, will see large-scale extensions that modify Mobile IPv6 itself, will see large-scale
deployment or involve industry consortia or other multi-vendor deployment or involve industry consortia, or other multi-vendor
organizations MUST be standardized in the IETF. Past experience has organizations MUST be standardized in the IETF. Past experience has
shown that such extensions of IETF protocols are critically dependent shown that such extensions of IETF protocols are critically dependent
on IETF review and standardization. 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
Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2. If the Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2. If the
Mobility Header message includes a Binding Authorization Data option Mobility Header message includes a Binding Authorization Data option
[2], then the Vendor Specific mobility option should appear before [2], then the Vendor Specific mobility option should appear before
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....... | Sub-Type | Data.......
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type Type
A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility An 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor-Specific mobility
option. option.
Length Length
A 8-bit field indicating the length of the option in octets An 8-bit field indicating the length of the option in octets
excluding the Type and the Length fields. All other fields are excluding the Type and the Length fields. All other fields are
included. included.
Vendor ID Vendor ID
The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA-
maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry [5]. maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry [5].
Sub-type Sub-type
A 8-bit field indicating the type of vendor specific information An 8-bit field indicating the type of vendor-specific information
carried in the option. The administration of the Sub-type is done carried in the option. The administration of the Sub-type is done
by the Vendor. 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. In particular the messages containing the Vendor Specific node. In particular, the messages containing the Vendor Specific
mobility option MUST be integrity protected. 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, has been
the type value allocated from the same space as the Mobility Options assigned the type value (19), allocated from the same space as the
registry created by RFC 3775 [2]. 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 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 21
[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", Work in Progress,
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 (work in progress), March 2007. March 2007.
[5] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Private Enterprise [5] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Private Enterprise
Numbers", http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers . Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Vijay Devarapalli Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks Azaire Networks
4800 Great America Pkwy 3121 Jay Street
Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA USA
Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com EMail: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
Alpesh Patel Alpesh Patel
Cisco Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: alpesh@cisco.com EMail: alpesh@cisco.com
Kent Leung Kent Leung
Cisco Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: kleung@cisco.com EMail: kleung@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 48 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/