JunHyuk Song JUNHYUK SONG
INTERNET DRAFT ChaeYong Chong
September CHAEYOUNG CHONG
October 2001 SAMSUNG Elec. ELECTRONICS
DONGKIE LEIGH
SK TELECOM
MIPv6 IPCP configuration option for PPP IPv6CP
draft-song-pppext-mipv6-ppp-support-00.txt
draft-song-pppext-mipv6-ppp-support-01.txt
Status of This Memo
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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:
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for
transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links. PPP
defines an extensible Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing,
configuring, and testing the data-link connection; and a family of
Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing and configuring
different network-layer protocols.
The MIPv6 link local router that support Mobile Node connection via
PPP, need to know whether the PPP client is MIPv6 node or not.
Because the link local operator may have different local access policy
such as user authentication for MIPv6
node (ex. support of the user mobility). mobility support [5] over
MIPv6 [6]. Currently, the IPv6CP option [2] supports establishment
and configuration of the IPv6 over PPP. However, MIPv6 link local
router cannot differentiate between IPv6 node and MIPv6 mobile node
which is connected over PPP. This document defines the new IPCP opton
option for the MIPv6 support.
1. Problem Statement Introduction
The MIPv6 Link link local router which may be providing PPP connetion,
currently cannot identify that support Mobile Node connection via
PPP, need to know whether the connection PPP client is requested by
Mobile IPv6 Node or IPv6 node. The MIPv6 service is value added
service for the operator, and node or not.
Because the local operator may want to support have different local access policy
such as user authentication for the user mobility service support [5] over Mobile IPv6. Therefore it is important to let
MIPv6 [6]. Currently, the IPv6CP option [2] supports establishment
and configuration of the IPv6 over PPP. However, MIPv6 link local
router cannot differentiate between IPv6 node and MIPv6 mobile node
which is a PPP termination point to be able to identify connected over PPP. This document defines the new IPCP
option for the MIPv6 service. support.
2. Configuration Options
The Configuration Option format and basic options are already defined
for IPCP [3].
The most updated value of the IPCP Option Type field are specified in
the IANA website web site [4]. This document concerns the following values:
[?] Mobile IPv6 (Pending for the IANA number assignment)
2.1. Mobile IPv6 Option
Description
Some operator may want to differentiate IPv6 node and MIPv6 node.
This mechanism will let Mobile Node to specify MIPv6 service.
A summary of the Configuration Option format is shown
below. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
The Mobile-IPv6 Configuration Option for IPCP is defined as follows:
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 | Interface-Identifier (MS Bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Interface-Identifier (cont)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Interface-Identifier (LS Bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
? (MIPv6)
Length
10
Interface-Identifier
The 64-bit Interface-Identifier which is very likely to be unique
on the link or zero if a good source of uniqueness can not be
found.
Default
If no valid interface identifier can be successfully negotiated,
no default Interface-Identifier value should be assumed. The
procedures for recovering from such a case are unspecified.
One approach is to manually configure the interface identifier of
the interface. [2]
3. IANA Considerations
Requires IPCP option number assignemnt assignment
4. Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Prof. Murali Venkatesh of Syracuse University.
References
[1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol", STD 51, RFC
1661, July 1994.
[2] Dimitry Haskin and Ed Allen, "IP version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472
December 1998
[3] G. McGregor, "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
May 1992
[4] www.iana.org
[5] JH SONG, CY CHONG, DK LEE, "IP user Mobility Support model"
October 2002, draft-song-network-user-mobility-00.txt
[6] David B. Johnson and C. Perkins. "Mobility Support in IPv6"
draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-14.txt
Addresses
Questions about this memo can be directed to the authors:
JUNHYUK SONG
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS.
Mobile Development Team
Network Systems Division
Phone: +82-31-779-6822
Email: santajun@lycos.co.kr
FAX: +82-31-7798769
CHAE YONG CHONG
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS.
Mobile Development Team
Network Systems Division
Phone: +82-31-779-6822
Email:cychong@samsung.com
DONGKIE LEIGH
SK TELECOM
Core Network Development Team
Network R&D Center
Phone +82-2-829-4640
Email: galahad@netsgo.com
FAX:+82-2-829-4612