Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                     V. DevarapalliRequest for Comments: 5094                               Azaire NetworksCategory: Standards Track                                       A. Patel                                                                K. Leung                                                                   Cisco                                                           December 2007Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific OptionStatus 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 Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  Vendor-Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 20071.  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,RFC3775 [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 20072.  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 inSection 3, has been   assigned the type value (19), allocated from the same space as the   Mobility Options registry created byRFC 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 20077.  References7.1.  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 2007Authors' 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.comDevarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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]