💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc5094.txt captured on 2024-02-05 at 11:23:07.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group V. Devarapalli
Request for Comments: 5094 Azaire Networks
Category: Standards Track A. Patel
K. Leung
Cisco
December 2007
Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
Status of This Memo
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 (C) The 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Vendor-Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007
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 [2] 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 [2].
The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO [3]
and Proxy MIPv6 [4] since these protocols also use Mobility Header
messages.
Vendor-specific protocol extensions can cause serious
interoperability issues and may in addition have adverse operational
impact, if they are not designed and used carefully. The vendor-
specific option described in this document is meant to support simple
use cases where it is sufficient to include some vendor data in the
standardized Mobile IPv6 protocol exchanges. The vendor-specific
option is not suitable for more complex vendor extensions that modify
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-specific 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.
Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007
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 [1].
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
[2], 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type | Data.......
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
An 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor-Specific mobility
option.
Length
An 8-bit field indicating the length of the option in octets
excluding the Type and the Length fields. All other fields are
included.
Vendor ID
The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA-
maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry [5].
Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007
Sub-type
An 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
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. In particular, the messages containing the Vendor Specific
mobility option MUST be integrity protected.
5. IANA Considerations
The Vendor-Specific mobility option, defined in Section 3, has been
assigned the type value (19), allocated from the same space as the
Mobility Options registry created by RFC 3775 [2].
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with
whom the contents of this document were discussed first.
Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
7.2. Informative References
[3] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
"Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
January 2005.
[4] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Work in Progress,
March 2007.
[5] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Private Enterprise
Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.
Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007
Authors' Addresses
Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
3121 Jay Street
Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA
EMail: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com
Alpesh Patel
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: alpesh@cisco.com
Kent Leung
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: kleung@cisco.com
Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5094 MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option December 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The 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 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Devarapalli, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]