< draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-02.txt		draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03.txt >
	This Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt, has expired, and has been deleted		MIP6 Working Group V. Devarapalli
	from the Internet-Drafts directory. An Internet-Draft expires 185 days from		Internet-Draft Azaire Networks
	the date that it is posted unless it is replaced by an updated version, or the		Intended status: Standards Track A. Patel
	Secretariat has been notified that the document is under official review by the		Expires: April 7, 2008 K. Leung
	IESG or has been passed to the RFC Editor for review and/or publication as an		Cisco
	RFC. This Internet-Draft was not published as an RFC.		October 5, 2007
	Internet-Drafts are not archival documents, and copies of Internet-Drafts that have		Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option
	been deleted from the directory are not available. The Secretariat does not have		draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-03.txt
	any information regarding the future plans of the author(s) or working group, if
	applicable, with respect to this deleted Internet-Draft. For more information, or
	to request a copy of the document, please contact the author(s) directly.
	Draft Author(s):		Status of this Memo
	Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com>
			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
			http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
			This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2008.
			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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
			2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			3. Vendor Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7
			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 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
			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
			A 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor Specific mobility
			option.
			Length
			A 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].
			Sub-type
			A 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, should have
			the type value 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.
			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",
			draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 (work in progress), March 2007.
			[5] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Private Enterprise
			Numbers", http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers .
			Authors' Addresses
			Vijay Devarapalli
			Azaire Networks
			4800 Great America Pkwy
			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
			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.
			Acknowledgment
			Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
			Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
End of changes. 3 change blocks.
	11 lines changed or deleted		8 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/