| < draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-09.txt | draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-10.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIP4 Working Group C. Perkins, Ed. | MIP4 Working Group C. Perkins, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft WiChorus Inc. | Internet-Draft WiChorus Inc. | |||
| Obsoletes: 3344 (if approved) January 26, 2010 | Obsoletes: 3344 (if approved) April 8, 2010 | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track | Intended status: Standards Track | |||
| Expires: July 30, 2010 | Expires: October 10, 2010 | |||
| IP Mobility Support for IPv4, revised | IP Mobility Support for IPv4, revised | |||
| draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-09 | draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-10 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document specifies protocol enhancements that allow transparent | This document specifies protocol enhancements that allow transparent | |||
| routing of IP datagrams to mobile nodes in the Internet. Each mobile | routing of IP datagrams to mobile nodes in the Internet. Each mobile | |||
| node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its | node is always identified by its home address, regardless of its | |||
| current point of attachment to the Internet. While situated away | current point of attachment to the Internet. While situated away | |||
| from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of | from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of | |||
| address, which provides information about its current point of | address, which provides information about its current point of | |||
| attachment to the Internet. The protocol provides for registering | attachment to the Internet. The protocol provides for registering | |||
| the care-of address with a home agent. The home agent sends | the care-of address with a home agent. The home agent sends | |||
| datagrams destined for the mobile node through a tunnel to the | datagrams destined for the mobile node through a tunnel to the | |||
| care-of address. After arriving at the end of the tunnel, each | care-of address. After arriving at the end of the tunnel, each | |||
| datagram is then delivered to the mobile node. | datagram is then delivered to the mobile node. | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | This Internet-Draft will expire on October 10, 2010. | |||
| 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 July 30, 2010. | ||||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| described in the BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 1.1. Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1.1. Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 1.2. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 1.2. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 1.3. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 1.3. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 1.4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 1.5. New Architectural Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 1.5. New Architectural Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 1.6. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 1.6. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 1.7. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 1.7. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 1.8. Message Format and Protocol Extensibility . . . . . . . . 14 | 1.8. Message Format and Protocol Extensibility . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 1.9. Type-Length-Value Extension Format for Mobile IP | 1.9. Type-Length-Value Extension Format for Mobile IP | |||
| Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 1.10. Long Extension Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 1.10. Long Extension Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 1.11. Short Extension Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 1.11. Short Extension Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 2. Agent Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 2. Agent Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 2.1. Agent Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 2.1. Agent Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 2.1.1. Mobility Agent Advertisement Extension . . . . . . . 21 | 2.1.1. Mobility Agent Advertisement Extension . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 2.1.2. Prefix-Lengths Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 2.1.2. Prefix-Lengths Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 2.1.3. One-byte Padding Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 2.1.3. One-byte Padding Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 2.2. Agent Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 2.2. Agent Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 2.3. Foreign Agent and Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . 25 | 2.3. Foreign Agent and Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 2.3.1. Advertised Router Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 2.3.1. Advertised Router Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 2.3.2. Sequence Numbers and Rollover Handling . . . . . . . 26 | 2.3.2. Sequence Numbers and Rollover Handling . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 2.4. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 2.4. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 2.4.1. Registration Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 2.4.1. Registration Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 2.4.2. Move Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 2.4.2. Move Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 2.4.3. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 2.4.3. Returning Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 2.4.4. Sequence Numbers and Rollover Handling . . . . . . . 30 | 2.4.4. Sequence Numbers and Rollover Handling . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 3. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 3. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
| 3.1. Registration Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 3.1. Registration Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
| 3.2. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 3.2. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| 3.3. Registration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 3.3. Registration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| 3.4. Registration Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | 3.4. Registration Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | |||
| 3.5. Registration Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | 3.5. Registration Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | |||
| 3.5.1. Computing Authentication Extension Values . . . . . . 39 | 3.5.1. Computing Authentication Extension Values . . . . . . 39 | |||
| 3.5.2. Mobile-Home Authentication Extension . . . . . . . . 40 | 3.5.2. Mobile-Home Authentication Extension . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
| 3.5.3. Mobile-Foreign Authentication Extension . . . . . . . 41 | 3.5.3. Mobile-Foreign Authentication Extension . . . . . . . 41 | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 8 ¶ | |||
| Appendix B. Link-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 | Appendix B. Link-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 | |||
| Appendix C. TCP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 | Appendix C. TCP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 | |||
| C.1. TCP Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 | C.1. TCP Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 | |||
| C.2. TCP Congestion Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 | C.2. TCP Congestion Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 | |||
| Appendix D. Example Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 | Appendix D. Example Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 | |||
| D.1. Registering with a Foreign Agent Care-of Address . . . . 96 | D.1. Registering with a Foreign Agent Care-of Address . . . . 96 | |||
| D.2. Registering with a Co-Located Care-of Address . . . . . . 96 | D.2. Registering with a Co-Located Care-of Address . . . . . . 96 | |||
| D.3. Deregistration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 | D.3. Deregistration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 | |||
| Appendix E. Applicability of Prefix-Lengths Extension . . . . . 98 | Appendix E. Applicability of Prefix-Lengths Extension . . . . . 98 | |||
| Appendix F. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 99 | Appendix F. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 99 | |||
| Appendix G. Changes since RFC 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 | Appendix G. Changes since RFC 3344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 | |||
| G.1. Recent Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 | Appendix H. Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 | |||
| G.2. Major Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 | H.1. Example ICMP Agent Advertisement Message Format . . . . . 102 | |||
| G.3. Minor Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 | H.2. Example Registration Request Message Format . . . . . . . 102 | |||
| G.4. Changes since RFC3344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 | H.3. Example Registration Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . 103 | |||
| Appendix H. Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 | Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 | |||
| H.1. Example ICMP Agent Advertisement Message Format . . . . . 106 | ||||
| H.2. Example Registration Request Message Format . . . . . . . 106 | ||||
| H.3. Example Registration Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . 107 | ||||
| Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| IP version 4 assumes that a node's IP address uniquely identifies the | IP version 4 assumes that a node's IP address uniquely identifies the | |||
| node's point of attachment to the Internet. Therefore, a node must | node's point of attachment to the Internet. Therefore, a node must | |||
| be located on the network indicated by its IP address in order to | be located on the network indicated by its IP address in order to | |||
| receive datagrams destined to it; otherwise, datagrams destined to | receive datagrams destined to it; otherwise, datagrams destined to | |||
| the node would be undeliverable. For a node to change its point of | the node would be undeliverable. For a node to change its point of | |||
| attachment without losing its ability to communicate, currently one | attachment without losing its ability to communicate, currently one | |||
| of the two following mechanisms must typically be employed: | of the two following mechanisms must typically be employed: | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 33 ¶ | |||
| connections when the node changes location. The second has obvious | connections when the node changes location. The second has obvious | |||
| and severe scaling problems, especially relevant considering the | and severe scaling problems, especially relevant considering the | |||
| explosive growth in sales of notebook (mobile) computers. | explosive growth in sales of notebook (mobile) computers. | |||
| A new, scalable, mechanism is required for accommodating node | A new, scalable, mechanism is required for accommodating node | |||
| mobility within the Internet. This document defines such a | mobility within the Internet. This document defines such a | |||
| mechanism, which enables nodes to change their point of attachment to | mechanism, which enables nodes to change their point of attachment to | |||
| the Internet without changing their IP address. | the Internet without changing their IP address. | |||
| Changes between this revised specification for Mobile IP and the | Changes between this revised specification for Mobile IP and the | |||
| original specifications (see [40],[14],[15],[20],[4]) are detailed in | original specifications (see [44],[14],[15],[20],[4]) are detailed in | |||
| Appendix G. | Appendix G. | |||
| 1.1. Protocol Requirements | 1.1. Protocol Requirements | |||
| A mobile node must be able to communicate with other nodes after | A mobile node must be able to communicate with other nodes after | |||
| changing its link-layer point of attachment to the Internet, yet | changing its link-layer point of attachment to the Internet, yet | |||
| without changing its IP address. | without changing its IP address. | |||
| A mobile node must be able to communicate with other nodes that do | A mobile node must be able to communicate with other nodes that do | |||
| not implement these mobility functions. No protocol enhancements are | not implement these mobility functions. No protocol enhancements are | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 8 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 8 ¶ | |||
| A peer with which a mobile node is communicating. A correspondent | A peer with which a mobile node is communicating. A correspondent | |||
| node may be either mobile or stationary. | node may be either mobile or stationary. | |||
| Foreign Network | Foreign Network | |||
| Any network other than the mobile node's Home Network. | Any network other than the mobile node's Home Network. | |||
| Gratuitous ARP | Gratuitous ARP | |||
| An ARP packet sent by a node in order to spontaneously cause other | An ARP packet sent by a node in order to spontaneously cause other | |||
| nodes to update an entry in their ARP cache [42]. See | nodes to update an entry in their ARP cache [45]. See | |||
| Section 4.6. | Section 4.6. | |||
| Home Address | Home Address | |||
| An IP address that is assigned for an extended period of time to a | An IP address that is assigned for an extended period of time to a | |||
| mobile node. It remains unchanged regardless of where the node is | mobile node. It remains unchanged regardless of where the node is | |||
| attached to the Internet. | attached to the Internet. | |||
| Home Network | Home Network | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 44 ¶ | |||
| o When the mobile node detects that it is located on its home | o When the mobile node detects that it is located on its home | |||
| network, it operates without mobility services. If returning to | network, it operates without mobility services. If returning to | |||
| its home network from being registered elsewhere, the mobile node | its home network from being registered elsewhere, the mobile node | |||
| deregisters with its home agent, through exchange of a | deregisters with its home agent, through exchange of a | |||
| Registration Request and Registration Reply message with it. | Registration Request and Registration Reply message with it. | |||
| o When a mobile node detects that it has moved to a foreign network, | o When a mobile node detects that it has moved to a foreign network, | |||
| it obtains a care-of address on the foreign network. The care-of | it obtains a care-of address on the foreign network. The care-of | |||
| address can either be determined from a foreign agent's | address can either be determined from a foreign agent's | |||
| advertisements (a foreign agent care-of address), or by some | advertisements (a foreign agent care-of address), or by some | |||
| external assignment mechanism such as DHCP [30] (a co-located | external assignment mechanism such as DHCP [34] (a co-located | |||
| care-of address). | care-of address). | |||
| o The mobile node operating away from home then registers its new | o The mobile node operating away from home then registers its new | |||
| care-of address with its home agent through exchange of a | care-of address with its home agent through exchange of a | |||
| Registration Request and Registration Reply message with it, | Registration Request and Registration Reply message with it, | |||
| possibly via a foreign agent (Section 3). | possibly via a foreign agent (Section 3). | |||
| o Datagrams sent to the mobile node's home address are intercepted | o Datagrams sent to the mobile node's home address are intercepted | |||
| by its home agent, tunneled by the home agent to the mobile node's | by its home agent, tunneled by the home agent to the mobile node's | |||
| care-of address, received at the tunnel endpoint (either at a | care-of address, received at the tunnel endpoint (either at a | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 40 ¶ | |||
| tunnel and, upon receiving tunneled datagrams, decapsulates them | tunnel and, upon receiving tunneled datagrams, decapsulates them | |||
| and delivers the inner datagram to the mobile node. This mode of | and delivers the inner datagram to the mobile node. This mode of | |||
| acquisition is preferred because it allows many mobile nodes to | acquisition is preferred because it allows many mobile nodes to | |||
| share the same care-of address and therefore does not place | share the same care-of address and therefore does not place | |||
| unnecessary demands on the already limited IPv4 address space. | unnecessary demands on the already limited IPv4 address space. | |||
| b. A "co-located care-of address" is a care-of address acquired by | b. A "co-located care-of address" is a care-of address acquired by | |||
| the mobile node as a local IP address through some external | the mobile node as a local IP address through some external | |||
| means, which the mobile node then associates with one of its own | means, which the mobile node then associates with one of its own | |||
| network interfaces. The address may be dynamically acquired as a | network interfaces. The address may be dynamically acquired as a | |||
| temporary address by the mobile node such as through DHCP [30], | temporary address by the mobile node such as through DHCP [34], | |||
| or may be owned by the mobile node as a long-term address for its | or may be owned by the mobile node as a long-term address for its | |||
| use only while visiting some foreign network. Specific external | use only while visiting some foreign network. Specific external | |||
| methods of acquiring a local IP address for use as a co-located | methods of acquiring a local IP address for use as a co-located | |||
| care-of address are beyond the scope of this document. When | care-of address are beyond the scope of this document. When | |||
| using a co-located care-of address, the mobile node serves as the | using a co-located care-of address, the mobile node serves as the | |||
| endpoint of the tunnel and itself performs decapsulation of the | endpoint of the tunnel and itself performs decapsulation of the | |||
| datagrams tunneled to it. | datagrams tunneled to it. | |||
| The mode of using a co-located care-of address has the advantage that | The mode of using a co-located care-of address has the advantage that | |||
| it allows a mobile node to function without a foreign agent, for | it allows a mobile node to function without a foreign agent, for | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 47 ¶ | |||
| Mobile IP defines a set of new control messages, sent with UDP [17] | Mobile IP defines a set of new control messages, sent with UDP [17] | |||
| using well-known port number 434. The following two message types | using well-known port number 434. The following two message types | |||
| are defined in this document: | are defined in this document: | |||
| 1 Registration Request | 1 Registration Request | |||
| 3 Registration Reply | 3 Registration Reply | |||
| Up-to-date values for the message types for Mobile IP control | Up-to-date values for the message types for Mobile IP control | |||
| messages are specified in the IANA online database [45]. | messages are specified in the IANA online database [48]. | |||
| In addition, for Agent Discovery, Mobile IP makes use of the existing | In addition, for Agent Discovery, Mobile IP makes use of the existing | |||
| Router Advertisement and Router Solicitation messages defined for | Router Advertisement and Router Solicitation messages defined for | |||
| ICMP Router Discovery [5]. | ICMP Router Discovery [5]. | |||
| Mobile IP defines a general Extension mechanism to allow optional | Mobile IP defines a general Extension mechanism to allow optional | |||
| information to be carried by Mobile IP control messages or by ICMP | information to be carried by Mobile IP control messages or by ICMP | |||
| Router Discovery messages. Some extensions have been specified to be | Router Discovery messages. Some extensions have been specified to be | |||
| encoded in the simple Type-Length-Value format described in | encoded in the simple Type-Length-Value format described in | |||
| Section 1.9. | Section 1.9. | |||
| Extensions allow variable amounts of information to be carried within | Extensions allow variable amounts of information to be carried within | |||
| each datagram. The end of the list of Extensions is indicated by the | each datagram. The end of the list of Extensions is indicated by the | |||
| total length of the IP datagram. | total length of the IP datagram. | |||
| Two separately maintained sets of numbering spaces, from which | Two separately maintained sets of numbering spaces, from which | |||
| Extension Type values are allocated, are used in Mobile IP: | Extension Type values are allocated, are used in Mobile IP: | |||
| o The first set consists of those Extensions which may appear only | o The first set consists of those Extensions which may appear in | |||
| in Mobile IP control messages (those sent to and from UDP port | Mobile IP control messages (those sent to and from UDP port number | |||
| number 434). In this document, the following Types are defined | 434). In this document, the following Types are defined for | |||
| for Extensions appearing in Mobile IP control messages: | Extensions appearing in Mobile IP control messages: | |||
| 0 One-byte Padding (encoded with no Length nor Data field) | ||||
| 32 Mobile-Home Authentication | 32 Mobile-Home Authentication | |||
| 33 Mobile-Foreign Authentication | 33 Mobile-Foreign Authentication | |||
| 34 Foreign-Home Authentication | 34 Foreign-Home Authentication | |||
| o The second set consists of those extensions which may appear only | o The second set consists of those extensions which may appear in | |||
| in ICMP Router Discovery messages [5]. In this document, the | ICMP Router Discovery messages [5]. In this document, the | |||
| following Types are defined for Extensions appearing in ICMP | following Types are defined for Extensions appearing in ICMP | |||
| Router Discovery messages: | Router Discovery messages: | |||
| 0 One-byte Padding (encoded with no Length nor Data field) | 0 One-byte Padding (encoded with no Length nor Data field) | |||
| 16 Mobility Agent Advertisement | 16 Mobility Agent Advertisement | |||
| 19 Prefix-Lengths | 19 Prefix-Lengths | |||
| Each individual Extension is described in detail in a separate | Each individual Extension is described in detail in a separate | |||
| section later in this document. Up-to-date values for these | section later in this document. Up-to-date values for these | |||
| Extension Type numbers are specified in the IANA online database | Extension Type numbers are specified in the IANA online database | |||
| [45]. | [48]. | |||
| Due to the separation (orthogonality) of these sets, it is | Due to the separation (orthogonality) of these sets, it is | |||
| conceivable that two Extensions that are defined at a later date | conceivable that two Extensions that are defined at a later date | |||
| could have identical Type values, so long as one of the Extensions | could have identical Type values, so long as one of the Extensions | |||
| may be used only in Mobile IP control messages and the other may be | may be used only in Mobile IP control messages and the other may be | |||
| used only in ICMP Router Discovery messages. | used only in ICMP Router Discovery messages. | |||
| The type field in the Mobile IP extension structure can support up to | The type field in the Mobile IP extension structure can support up to | |||
| 255 (skippable and not skippable) uniquely identifiable extensions. | 255 (skippable and not skippable) uniquely identifiable extensions. | |||
| When an Extension numbered in either of these sets within the range 0 | When an Extension numbered in either of these sets within the range 0 | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 16 ¶ | |||
| Extensions and message data MUST still be processed. The Length | Extensions and message data MUST still be processed. The Length | |||
| field of the Extension is used to skip the Data field in searching | field of the Extension is used to skip the Data field in searching | |||
| for the next Extension. | for the next Extension. | |||
| Unless additional structure is utilized for the extension types, new | Unless additional structure is utilized for the extension types, new | |||
| developments or additions to Mobile IP might require so many new | developments or additions to Mobile IP might require so many new | |||
| extensions that the available space for extension types might run | extensions that the available space for extension types might run | |||
| out. Two new extension structures are proposed to solve this | out. Two new extension structures are proposed to solve this | |||
| problem. Certain types of extensions can be aggregated, using | problem. Certain types of extensions can be aggregated, using | |||
| subtypes to identify the precise extension, for example as has been | subtypes to identify the precise extension, for example as has been | |||
| done with the Generic Authentication Keys extensions [43]. In many | done with the Generic Authentication Keys extensions [46]. In many | |||
| cases, this may reduce the rate of allocation for new values of the | cases, this may reduce the rate of allocation for new values of the | |||
| type field. | type field. | |||
| Since the new extension structures will cause an efficient usage of | Since the new extension structures will cause an efficient usage of | |||
| the extension type space, it is recommended that new Mobile IP | the extension type space, it is recommended that new Mobile IP | |||
| extensions follow one of the two new extension formats whenever there | extensions follow one of the two new extension formats whenever there | |||
| may be the possibility to group related extensions together. | may be the possibility to group related extensions together. | |||
| The following subsections provide details about three distinct | The following subsections provide details about three distinct | |||
| structures for Mobile IP extensions: | structures for Mobile IP extensions: | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 23 ¶ | |||
| Data | Data | |||
| The particular data associated with this Extension. This field | The particular data associated with this Extension. This field | |||
| may be zero or more bytes in length. The format and length of the | may be zero or more bytes in length. The format and length of the | |||
| data field is determined by the type and length fields. | data field is determined by the type and length fields. | |||
| 1.10. Long Extension Format | 1.10. Long Extension Format | |||
| This format is applicable for non-skippable extensions which carry | This format is applicable for non-skippable extensions which carry | |||
| information more than 256 bytes. | information more than 256 bytes. Skippable extensions can never use | |||
| the long format, because the receiver is not required to include | ||||
| parsing code and is likely to treat the 8 bits immediately following | ||||
| the Type as the Length field. | ||||
| 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 | Sub-Type | Length | | | Type | Sub-Type | Length | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Data ..... | | Data ..... | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| The Long Extension format requires that the following fields be | The Long Extension format requires that the following fields be | |||
| skipping to change at page 21, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 44 ¶ | |||
| Advertisement fields. It is used to indicate that an ICMP Router | Advertisement fields. It is used to indicate that an ICMP Router | |||
| Advertisement message is also an Agent Advertisement being sent by a | Advertisement message is also an Agent Advertisement being sent by a | |||
| mobility agent. The Mobility Agent Advertisement Extension is | mobility agent. The Mobility Agent Advertisement Extension is | |||
| defined as follows: | defined as follows: | |||
| 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 | Sequence Number | | | Type | Length | Sequence Number | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Registration Lifetime |R|B|H|F|M|G|r|T| reserved | | | Registration Lifetime |R|B|H|F|M|G|r|T|U|X|I|reserved | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | zero or more Care-of Addresses | | | zero or more Care-of Addresses | | |||
| | ... | | | ... | | |||
| Type | Type | |||
| 16 | 16 | |||
| Length | Length | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 17 ¶ | |||
| GRE encapsulation. This agent implements receiving tunneled | GRE encapsulation. This agent implements receiving tunneled | |||
| datagrams that use GRE encapsulation [13]. | datagrams that use GRE encapsulation [13]. | |||
| r | r | |||
| Sent as zero; ignored on reception. SHOULD NOT be allocated for | Sent as zero; ignored on reception. SHOULD NOT be allocated for | |||
| any other uses. | any other uses. | |||
| T | T | |||
| Foreign agent supports reverse tunneling [12]. | Foreign agent supports reverse tunneling as specified in [12]. | |||
| U | ||||
| Mobility agent supports UDP Tunnelling as specified in [27]. | ||||
| X | ||||
| Mobility agent supports Registration Revocation as specified in | ||||
| [28]. | ||||
| I | ||||
| Foreign agent supports Regional Registration as specified in [29]. | ||||
| reserved | reserved | |||
| Sent as zero; ignored on reception. | Sent as zero; ignored on reception. | |||
| Care-of Address(es) | Care-of Address(es) | |||
| The advertised foreign agent care-of address(es) provided by this | The advertised foreign agent care-of address(es) provided by this | |||
| foreign agent. An Agent Advertisement MUST include at least one | foreign agent. An Agent Advertisement MUST include at least one | |||
| care-of address if the 'F' bit is set. The number of care-of | care-of address if the 'F' bit is set. The number of care-of | |||
| skipping to change at page 39, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 39, line 27 ¶ | |||
| 129 administratively prohibited | 129 administratively prohibited | |||
| 130 insufficient resources | 130 insufficient resources | |||
| 131 mobile node failed authentication | 131 mobile node failed authentication | |||
| 132 foreign agent failed authentication | 132 foreign agent failed authentication | |||
| 133 registration Identification mismatch | 133 registration Identification mismatch | |||
| 134 poorly formed Request | 134 poorly formed Request | |||
| 135 too many simultaneous mobility bindings | 135 too many simultaneous mobility bindings | |||
| 136 unknown home agent address | 136 unknown home agent address | |||
| Up-to-date values of the Code field are specified in the IANA online | Up-to-date values of the Code field are specified in the IANA online | |||
| database [45]. | database [48]. | |||
| 3.5. Registration Extensions | 3.5. Registration Extensions | |||
| 3.5.1. Computing Authentication Extension Values | 3.5.1. Computing Authentication Extension Values | |||
| The Authenticator value computed for each authentication Extension | The Authenticator value computed for each authentication Extension | |||
| MUST protect the following fields from the registration message: | MUST protect the following fields from the registration message: | |||
| o the UDP payload (that is, the Registration Request or Registration | o the UDP payload (that is, the Registration Request or Registration | |||
| Reply data), | Reply data), | |||
| skipping to change at page 40, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 40, line 32 ¶ | |||
| IP MUST implement the default authentication algorithm (HMAC-MD5) | IP MUST implement the default authentication algorithm (HMAC-MD5) | |||
| specified above. | specified above. | |||
| 3.5.2. Mobile-Home Authentication Extension | 3.5.2. Mobile-Home Authentication Extension | |||
| At least one authorization-enabling extension MUST be present in all | At least one authorization-enabling extension MUST be present in all | |||
| Registration Requests, and also in all Registration Replies generated | Registration Requests, and also in all Registration Replies generated | |||
| by the Home Agent. The Mobile-Home Authentication Extension is | by the Home Agent. The Mobile-Home Authentication Extension is | |||
| always an authorization-enabling for registration messages specified | always an authorization-enabling for registration messages specified | |||
| in this document. This requirement is intended to eliminate problems | in this document. This requirement is intended to eliminate problems | |||
| [26] which result from the uncontrolled propagation of remote | [30] which result from the uncontrolled propagation of remote | |||
| redirects in the Internet. The location of the authorization- | redirects in the Internet. The location of the authorization- | |||
| enabling extension marks the end of the data to be authenticated by | enabling extension marks the end of the data to be authenticated by | |||
| the authorizatizing agent interpreting that authorization-enabling | the authorizing agent interpreting that authorization-enabling | |||
| extension. | extension. | |||
| 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 | SPI .... | | Type | Length | SPI .... | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| ... SPI (cont.) | Authenticator ... | ... SPI (cont.) | Authenticator ... | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 64, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at page 64, line 38 ¶ | |||
| with a Code of 129. | with a Code of 129. | |||
| Requests with non-zero bits in reserved fields MUST be rejected with | Requests with non-zero bits in reserved fields MUST be rejected with | |||
| code 134 (poorly formed request). | code 134 (poorly formed request). | |||
| 3.8.3. Sending Registration Replies | 3.8.3. Sending Registration Replies | |||
| If the home agent accepts a Registration Request, it then MUST update | If the home agent accepts a Registration Request, it then MUST update | |||
| its record of the mobile node's mobility binding(s) and SHOULD send a | its record of the mobile node's mobility binding(s) and SHOULD send a | |||
| Registration Reply with a suitable Code. Otherwise (the home agent | Registration Reply with a suitable Code. Otherwise (the home agent | |||
| has denied the Request), it it SHOULD in most cases send a | has denied the Request), it SHOULD in most cases send a Registration | |||
| Registration Reply with an appropriate Code specifying the reason the | Reply with an appropriate Code specifying the reason the Request was | |||
| Request was denied. The following sections provide additional detail | denied. The following sections provide additional detail for the | |||
| for the values the home agent MUST supply in the fields of | values the home agent MUST supply in the fields of Registration Reply | |||
| Registration Reply messages. | messages. | |||
| 3.8.3.1. IP/UDP Fields | 3.8.3.1. IP/UDP Fields | |||
| This section provides the specific rules by which home agents pick | This section provides the specific rules by which home agents pick | |||
| values for the IP and UDP header fields of a Registration Reply. | values for the IP and UDP header fields of a Registration Reply. | |||
| IP Source Address | IP Source Address | |||
| Copied from the IP Destination Address of Registration Request, | Copied from the IP Destination Address of Registration Request, | |||
| unless a multicast or broadcast address was used. If the IP | unless a multicast or broadcast address was used. If the IP | |||
| skipping to change at page 75, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 75, line 17 ¶ | |||
| The use of ARP [16] requires special rules for correct operation when | The use of ARP [16] requires special rules for correct operation when | |||
| wireless or mobile nodes are involved. The requirements specified in | wireless or mobile nodes are involved. The requirements specified in | |||
| this section apply to all home networks in which ARP is used for | this section apply to all home networks in which ARP is used for | |||
| address resolution. | address resolution. | |||
| In addition to the normal use of ARP for resolving a target node's | In addition to the normal use of ARP for resolving a target node's | |||
| link-layer address from its IP address, this document distinguishes | link-layer address from its IP address, this document distinguishes | |||
| two special uses of ARP: | two special uses of ARP: | |||
| o A Proxy ARP [46] is an ARP Reply sent by one node on behalf of | o A Proxy ARP [49] is an ARP Reply sent by one node on behalf of | |||
| another node which is either unable or unwilling to answer its own | another node which is either unable or unwilling to answer its own | |||
| ARP Requests. The sender of a Proxy ARP reverses the Sender and | ARP Requests. The sender of a Proxy ARP reverses the Sender and | |||
| Target Protocol Address fields as described in [16], but supplies | Target Protocol Address fields as described in [16], but supplies | |||
| some configured link-layer address (generally, its own) in the | some configured link-layer address (generally, its own) in the | |||
| Sender Hardware Address field. The node receiving the Reply will | Sender Hardware Address field. The node receiving the Reply will | |||
| then associate this link-layer address with the IP address of the | then associate this link-layer address with the IP address of the | |||
| original target node, causing it to transmit future datagrams for | original target node, causing it to transmit future datagrams for | |||
| this target node to the node with that link-layer address. | this target node to the node with that link-layer address. | |||
| o A Gratuitous ARP [42] is an ARP packet sent by a node in order to | o A Gratuitous ARP [45] is an ARP packet sent by a node in order to | |||
| spontaneously cause other nodes to update an entry in their ARP | spontaneously cause other nodes to update an entry in their ARP | |||
| cache. A gratuitous ARP MAY use either an ARP Request or an ARP | cache. A gratuitous ARP MAY use either an ARP Request or an ARP | |||
| Reply packet. In either case, the ARP Sender Protocol Address and | Reply packet. In either case, the ARP Sender Protocol Address and | |||
| ARP Target Protocol Address are both set to the IP address of the | ARP Target Protocol Address are both set to the IP address of the | |||
| cache entry to be updated, and the ARP Sender Hardware Address is | cache entry to be updated, and the ARP Sender Hardware Address is | |||
| set to the link-layer address to which this cache entry should be | set to the link-layer address to which this cache entry should be | |||
| updated. When using an ARP Reply packet, the Target Hardware | updated. When using an ARP Reply packet, the Target Hardware | |||
| Address is also set to the link-layer address to which this cache | Address is also set to the link-layer address to which this cache | |||
| entry should be updated (this field is not used in an ARP Request | entry should be updated (this field is not used in an ARP Request | |||
| packet). | packet). | |||
| skipping to change at page 75, line 50 ¶ | skipping to change at page 75, line 50 ¶ | |||
| transmitted as a local broadcast packet on the local link. As | transmitted as a local broadcast packet on the local link. As | |||
| specified in [16], any node receiving any ARP packet (Request or | specified in [16], any node receiving any ARP packet (Request or | |||
| Reply) MUST update its local ARP cache with the Sender Protocol | Reply) MUST update its local ARP cache with the Sender Protocol | |||
| and Hardware Addresses in the ARP packet, if the receiving node | and Hardware Addresses in the ARP packet, if the receiving node | |||
| has an entry for that IP address already in its ARP cache. This | has an entry for that IP address already in its ARP cache. This | |||
| requirement in the ARP protocol applies even for ARP Request | requirement in the ARP protocol applies even for ARP Request | |||
| packets, and for ARP Reply packets that do not match any ARP | packets, and for ARP Reply packets that do not match any ARP | |||
| Request transmitted by the receiving node [16]. | Request transmitted by the receiving node [16]. | |||
| While a mobile node is registered on a foreign network, its home | While a mobile node is registered on a foreign network, its home | |||
| agent uses proxy ARP [46] to reply to ARP Requests it receives that | agent uses proxy ARP [49] to reply to ARP Requests it receives that | |||
| seek the mobile node's link-layer address. When receiving an ARP | seek the mobile node's link-layer address. When receiving an ARP | |||
| Request, the home agent MUST examine the target IP address of the | Request, the home agent MUST examine the target IP address of the | |||
| Request, and if this IP address matches the home address of any | Request, and if this IP address matches the home address of any | |||
| mobile node for which it has a registered mobility binding, the home | mobile node for which it has a registered mobility binding, the home | |||
| agent MUST transmit an ARP Reply on behalf of the mobile node. After | agent MUST transmit an ARP Reply on behalf of the mobile node. After | |||
| exchanging the sender and target addresses in the packet [46], the | exchanging the sender and target addresses in the packet [49], the | |||
| home agent MUST set the sender link-layer address in the packet to | home agent MUST set the sender link-layer address in the packet to | |||
| the link-layer address of its own interface over which the Reply will | the link-layer address of its own interface over which the Reply will | |||
| be sent. | be sent. | |||
| When a mobile node leaves its home network and registers a binding on | When a mobile node leaves its home network and registers a binding on | |||
| a foreign network, its home agent uses gratuitous ARP to update the | a foreign network, its home agent uses gratuitous ARP to update the | |||
| ARP caches of nodes on the home network. This causes such nodes to | ARP caches of nodes on the home network. This causes such nodes to | |||
| associate the link-layer address of the home agent with the mobile | associate the link-layer address of the home agent with the mobile | |||
| node's home (IP) address. When registering a binding for a mobile | node's home (IP) address. When registering a binding for a mobile | |||
| node for which the home agent previously had no binding (the mobile | node for which the home agent previously had no binding (the mobile | |||
| skipping to change at page 79, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 79, line 43 ¶ | |||
| extensions. | extensions. | |||
| 5.2. Areas of Security Concern in this Protocol | 5.2. Areas of Security Concern in this Protocol | |||
| The registration protocol described in this document will result in a | The registration protocol described in this document will result in a | |||
| mobile node's traffic being tunneled to its care-of address. This | mobile node's traffic being tunneled to its care-of address. This | |||
| tunneling feature could be a significant vulnerability if the | tunneling feature could be a significant vulnerability if the | |||
| registration were not authenticated. Such remote redirection, for | registration were not authenticated. Such remote redirection, for | |||
| instance as performed by the mobile registration protocol, is widely | instance as performed by the mobile registration protocol, is widely | |||
| understood to be a security problem in the current Internet if not | understood to be a security problem in the current Internet if not | |||
| authenticated [26]. Moreover, the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) | authenticated [30]. Moreover, the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) | |||
| is not authenticated, and can potentially be used to steal another | is not authenticated, and can potentially be used to steal another | |||
| host's traffic. The use of "Gratuitous ARP" (Section 4.6) brings | host's traffic. The use of "Gratuitous ARP" (Section 4.6) brings | |||
| with it all of the risks associated with the use of ARP. | with it all of the risks associated with the use of ARP. | |||
| 5.3. Key Management | 5.3. Key Management | |||
| This specification requires a strong authentication mechanism (keyed | This specification requires a strong authentication mechanism (keyed | |||
| MD5) which precludes many potential attacks based on the Mobile IP | MD5) which precludes many potential attacks based on the Mobile IP | |||
| registration protocol. However, because key distribution is | registration protocol. However, because key distribution is | |||
| difficult in the absence of a network key management protocol, | difficult in the absence of a network key management protocol, | |||
| skipping to change at page 80, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 80, line 41 ¶ | |||
| traffic analysis should consider appropriate use of link encryption. | traffic analysis should consider appropriate use of link encryption. | |||
| If absolute location privacy is desired, the mobile node can create a | If absolute location privacy is desired, the mobile node can create a | |||
| tunnel to its home agent. Then, datagrams destined for correspondent | tunnel to its home agent. Then, datagrams destined for correspondent | |||
| nodes will appear to emanate from the home network, and it may be | nodes will appear to emanate from the home network, and it may be | |||
| more difficult to pinpoint the location of the mobile node. Such | more difficult to pinpoint the location of the mobile node. Such | |||
| mechanisms are all beyond the scope of this document. | mechanisms are all beyond the scope of this document. | |||
| 5.6. Ingress Filtering | 5.6. Ingress Filtering | |||
| Many routers implement security policies such as "ingress filtering" | Many routers implement security policies such as "ingress filtering" | |||
| [31] that do not allow forwarding of packets that have a Source | [35] that do not allow forwarding of packets that have a Source | |||
| Address which appears topologically incorrect. In environments where | Address which appears topologically incorrect. In environments where | |||
| this is a problem, mobile nodes may use reverse tunneling [12] with | this is a problem, mobile nodes may use reverse tunneling [12] with | |||
| the foreign agent supplied care-of address as the Source Address. | the foreign agent supplied care-of address as the Source Address. | |||
| Reverse tunneled packets will be able to pass normally through such | Reverse tunneled packets will be able to pass normally through such | |||
| routers, while ingress filtering rules will still be able to locate | routers, while ingress filtering rules will still be able to locate | |||
| the true topological source of the packet in the same way as packets | the true topological source of the packet in the same way as packets | |||
| from non-mobile nodes. | from non-mobile nodes. | |||
| 5.7. Replay Protection for Registration Requests | 5.7. Replay Protection for Registration Requests | |||
| skipping to change at page 84, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 84, line 16 ¶ | |||
| Mobile IP specifies several new number spaces for values to be used | Mobile IP specifies several new number spaces for values to be used | |||
| in various message fields. These number spaces include the | in various message fields. These number spaces include the | |||
| following: | following: | |||
| o Mobile IP message types sent to UDP port 434, as defined in | o Mobile IP message types sent to UDP port 434, as defined in | |||
| Section 1.8. | Section 1.8. | |||
| o types of extensions to Registration Request and Registration Reply | o types of extensions to Registration Request and Registration Reply | |||
| messages (see Section 3.3 and Section 3.4, and also consult | messages (see Section 3.3 and Section 3.4, and also consult | |||
| ([12],[39],[2],[3],[7]). | ([12],[43],[2],[3],[7]). | |||
| o values for the Code in the Registration Reply message (see | o values for the Code in the Registration Reply message (see | |||
| Section 3.4, and also consult ([12],[39],[2],[3],[7]). | Section 3.4, and also consult ([12],[43],[2],[3],[7]). | |||
| o Mobile IP defines so-called Agent Solicitation and Agent | o Mobile IP defines so-called Agent Solicitation and Agent | |||
| Advertisement messages. These messages are in fact Router | Advertisement messages. These messages are in fact Router | |||
| Discovery messages [5] augmented with mobile-IP specific | Discovery messages [5] augmented with mobile-IP specific | |||
| extensions. Thus, they do not define a new name space, but do | extensions. Thus, they do not define a new name space, but do | |||
| define additional Router Discovery extensions as described below | define additional Router Discovery extensions as described below | |||
| in Section 6.2. Also see Section 2.1 and consult ([3], [7]). | in Section 6.2. Also see Section 2.1 and consult ([3], [7]). | |||
| There are additional Mobile IP numbering spaces specified in [3]. | There are additional Mobile IP numbering spaces specified in [3]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 84, line 48 ¶ | skipping to change at page 84, line 48 ¶ | |||
| for Foreign Agent messages. This error code is needed to indicate | for Foreign Agent messages. This error code is needed to indicate | |||
| the status "Invalid Home Agent Address". See Section 3.7.2 for | the status "Invalid Home Agent Address". See Section 3.7.2 for | |||
| details. | details. | |||
| 6.1. Mobile IP Message Types | 6.1. Mobile IP Message Types | |||
| Mobile IP messages are defined to be those that are sent to a message | Mobile IP messages are defined to be those that are sent to a message | |||
| recipient at port 434 (UDP or TCP). The number space for Mobile IP | recipient at port 434 (UDP or TCP). The number space for Mobile IP | |||
| messages is specified in Section 1.8. Approval of new extension | messages is specified in Section 1.8. Approval of new extension | |||
| numbers is subject to Expert Review, and a specification is required | numbers is subject to Expert Review, and a specification is required | |||
| [21]. The currently standardized message types have the following | [22]. The currently standardized message types have the following | |||
| numbers, and are specified in the indicated sections. | numbers, and are specified in the indicated sections. | |||
| Type Name Section | Type Name Section | |||
| ---- -------------------------------------------- --------- | ---- -------------------------------------------- --------- | |||
| 1 Registration Request 3.3 | 1 Registration Request 3.3 | |||
| 3 Registration Reply 3.4 | 3 Registration Reply 3.4 | |||
| 6.2. Extensions to RFC 1256 Router Advertisement | 6.2. Extensions to RFC 1256 Router Advertisement | |||
| RFC 1256 defines two ICMP message types, Router Advertisement and | RFC 1256 defines two ICMP message types, Router Advertisement and | |||
| skipping to change at page 85, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 85, line 25 ¶ | |||
| Mobile IP. The extension types currently standardized for use with | Mobile IP. The extension types currently standardized for use with | |||
| Mobile IP have the following numbers. | Mobile IP have the following numbers. | |||
| Type Name Reference | Type Name Reference | |||
| ---- -------------------------------------------- --------- | ---- -------------------------------------------- --------- | |||
| 0 One-byte Padding 2.1.3 | 0 One-byte Padding 2.1.3 | |||
| 16 Mobility Agent Advertisement 2.1.1 | 16 Mobility Agent Advertisement 2.1.1 | |||
| 19 Prefix-Lengths 2.1.2 | 19 Prefix-Lengths 2.1.2 | |||
| Approval of new extension numbers for use with Mobile IP is subject | Approval of new extension numbers for use with Mobile IP is subject | |||
| to Expert Review, and a specification is required [21]. | to Expert Review, and a specification is required [22]. | |||
| 6.3. Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages | 6.3. Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages | |||
| The Mobile IP messages, specified within this document, and listed in | The Mobile IP messages, specified within this document, and listed in | |||
| Section 1.8 and Section 6.1, may have extensions. Mobile IP message | Section 1.8 and Section 6.1, may have extensions. Mobile IP message | |||
| extensions all share the same number space, even if they are to be | extensions all share the same number space, even if they are to be | |||
| applied to different Mobile IP messages. The number space for Mobile | applied to different Mobile IP messages. The number space for Mobile | |||
| IP message extensions is specified within this document. Approval of | IP message extensions is specified within this document. Approval of | |||
| new extension numbers is subject to Expert Review, and a | new extension numbers is subject to Expert Review, and a | |||
| specification is required [21]. | specification is required [22]. | |||
| Type Name Reference | Type Name Reference | |||
| ---- -------------------------------------------- --------- | ---- -------------------------------------------- --------- | |||
| 0 One-byte Padding | 0 One-byte Padding | |||
| 32 Mobile-Home Authentication 3.5.2 | 32 Mobile-Home Authentication 3.5.2 | |||
| 33 Mobile-Foreign Authentication 3.5.3 | 33 Mobile-Foreign Authentication 3.5.3 | |||
| 34 Foreign-Home Authentication 3.5.4 | 34 Foreign-Home Authentication 3.5.4 | |||
| 6.4. Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply Messages | 6.4. Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply Messages | |||
| The Mobile IP Registration Reply message, specified in Section 3.4, | The Mobile IP Registration Reply message, specified in Section 3.4, | |||
| has a Code field. The number space for the Code field values is also | has a Code field. The number space for the Code field values is also | |||
| specified in Section 3.4. The Code number space is structured | specified in Section 3.4. The Code number space is structured | |||
| according to whether the registration was successful, or whether the | according to whether the registration was successful, or whether the | |||
| foreign agent denied the registration request, or lastly whether the | foreign agent denied the registration request, or lastly whether the | |||
| home agent denied the registration request, as follows: | home agent denied the registration request, as follows: | |||
| 0-8 Success Codes | +---------+------------------------------------------------------+ | |||
| 9-63 No allocation guidelines currently exist | | Code #s | Guideline | | |||
| 64-127 Error Codes from the Foreign Agent | +---------+------------------------------------------------------+ | |||
| 128-192 Error Codes from the Home Agent | | 0-8 | Success Codes | | |||
| 193-255 No allocation guidelines currently exist | | | | | |||
| | 9-63 | Allocation guidelines not specified in this document | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | 64-127 | Error Codes from the Foreign Agent | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | 128-192 | Error Codes from the Home Agent | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | 193-200 | Error Codes from the Gateway Foreign Agent [29] | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | 201-255 | Allocation guidelines not specified in this document | | ||||
| +---------+------------------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| Approval of new Code values requires Expert Review [21]. | Approval of new Code values requires Expert Review [22]. | |||
| Table 1: Guidelines for Allocation of Code Values | ||||
| 7. Acknowledgments | 7. Acknowledgments | |||
| Special thanks to Steve Deering (Xerox PARC), along with Dan Duchamp | Special thanks to Steve Deering (Xerox PARC), along with Dan Duchamp | |||
| and John Ioannidis (JI) (Columbia University), for forming the | and John Ioannidis (JI) (Columbia University), for forming the | |||
| working group, chairing it, and putting so much effort into its early | working group, chairing it, and putting so much effort into its early | |||
| development. Columbia's early Mobile IP work can be found in | development. Columbia's early Mobile IP work can be found in | |||
| [33],[34],[35]. | [37],[38],[39]. | |||
| Thanks also to Kannan Alaggapan, Greg Minshall, Tony Li, Jim Solomon, | Thanks also to Kannan Alaggapan, Greg Minshall, Tony Li, Jim Solomon, | |||
| Erik Nordmark, Basavaraj Patil, and Phil Roberts for their | Erik Nordmark, Basavaraj Patil, and Phil Roberts for their | |||
| contributions to the group while performing the duties of | contributions to the group while performing the duties of | |||
| chairperson, as well as for their many useful comments. | chairperson, as well as for their many useful comments. | |||
| Thanks to the active members of the Mobile IP Working Group, | Thanks to the active members of the Mobile IP Working Group, | |||
| particularly those who contributed text, including (in alphabetical | particularly those who contributed text, including (in alphabetical | |||
| order) | order) | |||
| skipping to change at page 90, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 90, line 23 ¶ | |||
| [18] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, | [18] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, | |||
| September 1981. | September 1981. | |||
| [19] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, | [19] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, | |||
| April 1992. | April 1992. | |||
| [20] Solomon, J., "Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support", | [20] Solomon, J., "Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support", | |||
| RFC 2005, October 1996. | RFC 2005, October 1996. | |||
| [21] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA | [21] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, | |||
| August 2002. | ||||
| [22] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA | ||||
| Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. | Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. | |||
| 8.2. Informative References | 8.2. Informative References | |||
| [22] Solomon, J. and S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for | [23] Solomon, J. and S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for | |||
| PPP IPCP", RFC 2290, February 1998. | PPP IPCP", RFC 2290, February 1998. | |||
| [23] Montenegro, G., Dawkins, S., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N. | [24] Montenegro, G., Dawkins, S., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N. | |||
| Vaidya, "Long Thin Networks", RFC 2757, January 2000. | Vaidya, "Long Thin Networks", RFC 2757, January 2000. | |||
| [24] Allman, M., Glover, D., and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP Over | [25] Allman, M., Glover, D., and L. Sanchez, "Enhancing TCP Over | |||
| Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms", BCP 28, | Satellite Channels using Standard Mechanisms", BCP 28, | |||
| RFC 2488, January 1999. | RFC 2488, January 1999. | |||
| [25] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission | [26] Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission | |||
| Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000. | Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000. | |||
| [26] Bellovin, S., "Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol Suite", | [27] Levkowetz, H. and S. Vaarala, "Mobile IP Traversal of Network | |||
| Address Translation (NAT) Devices", RFC 3519, April 2003. | ||||
| [28] Glass, S. and M. Chandra, "Registration Revocation in Mobile | ||||
| IPv4", RFC 3543, August 2003. | ||||
| [29] Fogelstroem, E., Jonsson, A., and C. Perkins, "Mobile IPv4 | ||||
| Regional Registration", RFC 4857, June 2007. | ||||
| [30] Bellovin, S., "Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol Suite", | ||||
| ACM Computer Communications Review, 19(2), March 1989. | ACM Computer Communications Review, 19(2), March 1989. | |||
| [27] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z. | [31] Border, J., Kojo, M., Griner, J., Montenegro, G., and Z. | |||
| Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to Mitigate | Shelby, "Performance Enhancing Proxies Intended to Mitigate | |||
| Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, June 2001. | Link-Related Degradations", RFC 3135, June 2001. | |||
| [28] Caceres, R. and L. Iftode, "Improving the Performance of | [32] Caceres, R. and L. Iftode, "Improving the Performance of | |||
| Reliable Transport Protocols in Mobile Computing Environments", | Reliable Transport Protocols in Mobile Computing Environments", | |||
| IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, 13(5):850-- | IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, 13(5):850-- | |||
| 857, June 1995. | 857, June 1995. | |||
| [29] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N. | [33] Dawkins, S., Montenegro, G., Kojo, M., Magret, V., and N. | |||
| Vaidya, "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with | Vaidya, "End-to-end Performance Implications of Links with | |||
| Errors", BCP 50, RFC 3155, August 2001. | Errors", BCP 50, RFC 3155, August 2001. | |||
| [30] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, | [34] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, | |||
| March 1997. | March 1997. | |||
| [31] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: | [35] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: | |||
| Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source | Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source | |||
| Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000. | Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000. | |||
| [32] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial | [36] Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial | |||
| links", RFC 1144, February 1990. | links", RFC 1144, February 1990. | |||
| [33] Ioannidis, J., Duchamp, D., and G. Maguire, "IP-Based Protocols | [37] Ioannidis, J., Duchamp, D., and G. Maguire, "IP-Based Protocols | |||
| for Mobile Interworking", In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '01 | for Mobile Interworking", In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '01 | |||
| Conference: Communications Architectures and Protocols, Pages | Conference: Communications Architectures and Protocols, Pages | |||
| 235--245, September 1991. | 235--245, September 1991. | |||
| [34] Ioannidis, J. and G. Maguire, "The Design and Implementation of | [38] Ioannidis, J. and G. Maguire, "The Design and Implementation of | |||
| a Mobile Internetworking Architecture", In Proceedings of the | a Mobile Internetworking Architecture", In Proceedings of the | |||
| Winter USENIX Technical Conference, Pages 489--500, | Winter USENIX Technical Conference, Pages 489--500, | |||
| January 1993. | January 1993. | |||
| [35] Ioannidis, J., "Protocols for Mobile Interworking", PhD | [39] Ioannidis, J., "Protocols for Mobile Interworking", PhD | |||
| Dissertation - Columbia University in the City of New York , | Dissertation - Columbia University in the City of New York , | |||
| July 1993. | July 1993. | |||
| [36] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", In | [40] Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", In | |||
| Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '88 Workshop, ACM SIGCOMM, ACM | Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '88 Workshop, ACM SIGCOMM, ACM | |||
| Press, Pages 314--329, August 1998. | Press, Pages 314--329, August 1998. | |||
| [37] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", | [41] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", | |||
| RFC 2863, June 2000. | RFC 2863, June 2000. | |||
| [38] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol | [42] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol | |||
| (IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992. | (IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992. | |||
| [39] Montenegro, G. and V. Gupta, "Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for | [43] Montenegro, G. and V. Gupta, "Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for | |||
| Mobile IP", RFC 2356, June 1998. | Mobile IP", RFC 2356, June 1998. | |||
| [40] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, October 1996. | [44] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, October 1996. | |||
| [41] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, | ||||
| August 2002. | ||||
| [42] Stevens, R., "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols", | [45] Stevens, R., "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols", | |||
| Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachussets, 1994. | Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachussets, 1994. | |||
| [43] Perkins, C. and P. Calhoun, "Authentication, Authorization, and | [46] Perkins, C. and P. Calhoun, "Authentication, Authorization, and | |||
| Accounting (AAA) Registration Keys for Mobile IPv4", RFC 3957, | Accounting (AAA) Registration Keys for Mobile IPv4", RFC 3957, | |||
| March 2005. | March 2005. | |||
| [44] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, | [47] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, | |||
| RFC 1661, July 1994. | RFC 1661, July 1994. | |||
| [45] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Mobile IPv4 Numbers", | [48] IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Mobile IPv4 Numbers", | |||
| http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers . | http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers . | |||
| [46] Postel, J., "Multi-LAN address resolution", RFC 925, | [49] Postel, J., "Multi-LAN address resolution", RFC 925, | |||
| October 1984. | October 1984. | |||
| Appendix A. Pre-RFC5378 Disclaimer | Appendix A. Pre-RFC5378 Disclaimer | |||
| "This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF | This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF | |||
| Contributions published or made publicly available before November | Contributions published or made publicly available before November | |||
| 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this | 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this | |||
| material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow | material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow | |||
| modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. | modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. | |||
| Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling | Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling | |||
| the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified | the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified | |||
| outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may | outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may | |||
| not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format | not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format | |||
| it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other | it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other | |||
| than English." | than English. | |||
| Appendix B. Link-Layer Considerations | Appendix B. Link-Layer Considerations | |||
| The mobile node MAY use link-layer mechanisms to decide that its | The mobile node MAY use link-layer mechanisms to decide that its | |||
| point of attachment has changed. Such indications include the Down/ | point of attachment has changed. Such indications include the Down/ | |||
| Testing/Up interface status [37], and changes in cell or | Testing/Up interface status [41], and changes in cell or | |||
| administration. The mechanisms will be specific to the particular | administration. The mechanisms will be specific to the particular | |||
| link-layer technology, and are outside the scope of this document. | link-layer technology, and are outside the scope of this document. | |||
| The Point-to-Point-Protocol (PPP) [44] and its Internet Protocol | The Point-to-Point-Protocol (PPP) [47] and its Internet Protocol | |||
| Control Protocol (IPCP) [38], negotiates the use of IP addresses. | Control Protocol (IPCP) [42], negotiates the use of IP addresses. | |||
| The mobile node SHOULD first attempt to specify its home address, so | The mobile node SHOULD first attempt to specify its home address, so | |||
| that if the mobile node is attaching to its home network, the | that if the mobile node is attaching to its home network, the | |||
| unrouted link will function correctly. When the home address is not | unrouted link will function correctly. When the home address is not | |||
| accepted by the peer, but a transient IP address is dynamically | accepted by the peer, but a transient IP address is dynamically | |||
| assigned to the mobile node, and the mobile node is capable of | assigned to the mobile node, and the mobile node is capable of | |||
| supporting a co-located care-of address, the mobile node MAY register | supporting a co-located care-of address, the mobile node MAY register | |||
| that address as a co-located care-of address. When the peer | that address as a co-located care-of address. When the peer | |||
| specifies its own IP address, that address MUST NOT be assumed to be | specifies its own IP address, that address MUST NOT be assumed to be | |||
| a foreign agent care-of address or the IP address of a home agent. | a foreign agent care-of address or the IP address of a home agent. | |||
| PPP extensions for Mobile IP have been specified in RFC 2290 [22]. | PPP extensions for Mobile IP have been specified in RFC 2290 [23]. | |||
| Please consult that document for additional details for how to handle | Please consult that document for additional details for how to handle | |||
| care-of address assignment from PPP in a more efficient manner. | care-of address assignment from PPP in a more efficient manner. | |||
| Appendix C. TCP Considerations | Appendix C. TCP Considerations | |||
| C.1. TCP Timers | C.1. TCP Timers | |||
| When high-delay (e.g. SATCOM) or low-bandwidth (e.g. High-Frequency | When high-delay (e.g. SATCOM) or low-bandwidth (e.g. High-Frequency | |||
| Radio) links are in use, some TCP stacks may have insufficiently | Radio) links are in use, some TCP stacks may have insufficiently | |||
| adaptive (non-standard) retransmission timeouts. There may be | adaptive (non-standard) retransmission timeouts. There may be | |||
| spurious retransmission timeouts, even when the link and network are | spurious retransmission timeouts, even when the link and network are | |||
| actually operating properly, but just with a high delay because of | actually operating properly, but just with a high delay because of | |||
| the medium in use. This can cause an inability to create or maintain | the medium in use. This can cause an inability to create or maintain | |||
| TCP connections over such links, and can also cause unneeded | TCP connections over such links, and can also cause unneeded | |||
| retransmissions which consume already scarce bandwidth. Vendors are | retransmissions which consume already scarce bandwidth. Vendors are | |||
| encouraged to follow the algorithms in RFC 2988 [25] when | encouraged to follow the algorithms in RFC 2988 [26] when | |||
| implementing TCP retransmission timers. Vendors of systems designed | implementing TCP retransmission timers. Vendors of systems designed | |||
| for low-bandwidth, high-delay links should consult RFCs 2757 and 2488 | for low-bandwidth, high-delay links should consult RFCs 2757 and 2488 | |||
| [23], [24]. Designers of applications targeted to operate on mobile | [24], [25]. Designers of applications targeted to operate on mobile | |||
| nodes should be sensitive to the possibility of timer-related | nodes should be sensitive to the possibility of timer-related | |||
| difficulties. | difficulties. | |||
| C.2. TCP Congestion Management | C.2. TCP Congestion Management | |||
| Mobile nodes often use media which are more likely to introduce | Mobile nodes often use media which are more likely to introduce | |||
| errors, effectively causing more packets to be dropped. This | errors, effectively causing more packets to be dropped. This | |||
| introduces a conflict with the mechanisms for congestion management | introduces a conflict with the mechanisms for congestion management | |||
| found in modern versions of TCP [36]. Now, when a packet is dropped, | found in modern versions of TCP [40]. Now, when a packet is dropped, | |||
| the correspondent node's TCP implementation is likely to react as if | the correspondent node's TCP implementation is likely to react as if | |||
| there were a source of network congestion, and initiate the slow- | there were a source of network congestion, and initiate the slow- | |||
| start mechanisms [36] designed for controlling that problem. | start mechanisms [40] designed for controlling that problem. | |||
| However, those mechanisms are inappropriate for overcoming errors | However, those mechanisms are inappropriate for overcoming errors | |||
| introduced by the links themselves, and have the effect of magnifying | introduced by the links themselves, and have the effect of magnifying | |||
| the discontinuity introduced by the dropped packet. This problem has | the discontinuity introduced by the dropped packet. This problem has | |||
| been analyzed by Caceres, et al. [28]. TCP approaches to the problem | been analyzed by Caceres, et al. [32]. TCP approaches to the problem | |||
| of handling errors that might interfere with congestion management | of handling errors that might interfere with congestion management | |||
| are discussed in documents from the [pilc] working group [27] [29]. | are discussed in documents from the [pilc] working group [31] [33]. | |||
| While such approaches are beyond the scope of this document, they | While such approaches are beyond the scope of this document, they | |||
| illustrate that providing performance transparency to mobile nodes | illustrate that providing performance transparency to mobile nodes | |||
| involves understanding mechanisms outside the network layer. | involves understanding mechanisms outside the network layer. | |||
| Problems introduced by higher media error rates also indicate the | Problems introduced by higher media error rates also indicate the | |||
| need to avoid designs which systematically drop packets; such designs | need to avoid designs which systematically drop packets; such designs | |||
| might otherwise be considered favorably when making engineering | might otherwise be considered favorably when making engineering | |||
| tradeoffs. | tradeoffs. | |||
| Appendix D. Example Scenarios | Appendix D. Example Scenarios | |||
| skipping to change at page 96, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 96, line 45 ¶ | |||
| Mobility Agent Advertisement Extension of the | Mobility Agent Advertisement Extension of the | |||
| Router Advertisement message | Router Advertisement message | |||
| Identification = Network Time Protocol timestamp or Nonce | Identification = Network Time Protocol timestamp or Nonce | |||
| Extensions: | Extensions: | |||
| An authorization-enabling extension (e.g., the Mobile-Home | An authorization-enabling extension (e.g., the Mobile-Home | |||
| Authentication Extension) | Authentication Extension) | |||
| D.2. Registering with a Co-Located Care-of Address | D.2. Registering with a Co-Located Care-of Address | |||
| The mobile node enters a foreign network that contains no foreign | The mobile node enters a foreign network that contains no foreign | |||
| agents. The mobile node obtains an address from a DHCP server [30] | agents. The mobile node obtains an address from a DHCP server [34] | |||
| for use as a co-located care-of address. The mobile node supports | for use as a co-located care-of address. The mobile node supports | |||
| all forms of encapsulation (IP-in-IP, minimal encapsulation, and | all forms of encapsulation (IP-in-IP, minimal encapsulation, and | |||
| GRE), desires a copy of broadcast datagrams on the home network, and | GRE), desires a copy of broadcast datagrams on the home network, and | |||
| does not want simultaneous mobility bindings: | does not want simultaneous mobility bindings: | |||
| IP fields: | IP fields: | |||
| Source Address = care-of address obtained from DHCP server | Source Address = care-of address obtained from DHCP server | |||
| Destination Address = IP address of home agent | Destination Address = IP address of home agent | |||
| Time to Live = 64 | Time to Live = 64 | |||
| UDP fields: | UDP fields: | |||
| skipping to change at page 99, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 99, line 18 ¶ | |||
| improve interoperability by resolving ambiguities contained in the | improve interoperability by resolving ambiguities contained in the | |||
| earlier text. Implementations that perform authentication according | earlier text. Implementations that perform authentication according | |||
| to the new more precisely specified algorithm would be interoperable | to the new more precisely specified algorithm would be interoperable | |||
| with earlier implementations that did what was originally expected | with earlier implementations that did what was originally expected | |||
| for producing authentication data. That was a major source of non- | for producing authentication data. That was a major source of non- | |||
| interoperability before. | interoperability before. | |||
| However, this specification does have new features that, if used, | However, this specification does have new features that, if used, | |||
| would cause interoperability problems with older implementations. | would cause interoperability problems with older implementations. | |||
| All features specified in RFC 2002 will work with the new | All features specified in RFC 2002 will work with the new | |||
| implementations, except for V-J compression [32]. The following list | implementations, except for V-J compression [36]. The following list | |||
| details some of the possible areas of compatibility problems that may | details some of the possible areas of compatibility problems that may | |||
| be experienced by nodes conforming to this revised specification, | be experienced by nodes conforming to this revised specification, | |||
| when attempting to interoperate with nodes obeying RFC 2002. | when attempting to interoperate with nodes obeying RFC 2002. | |||
| o A client that expects some of the newly mandatory features (like | o A client that expects some of the newly mandatory features (like | |||
| reverse tunneling) from a foreign agent would still be | reverse tunneling) from a foreign agent would still be | |||
| interoperable as long as it pays attention to the `T' bit. | interoperable as long as it pays attention to the `T' bit. | |||
| o Mobile nodes that use the NAI extension to identify themselves | o Mobile nodes that use the NAI extension to identify themselves | |||
| would not work with old mobility agents. | would not work with old mobility agents. | |||
| skipping to change at page 100, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 100, line 5 ¶ | |||
| In all of these cases, a robust and well-configured mobile node is | In all of these cases, a robust and well-configured mobile node is | |||
| very likely to be able to recover if it takes reasonable actions upon | very likely to be able to recover if it takes reasonable actions upon | |||
| receipt of a Registration Reply with an error code indicating the | receipt of a Registration Reply with an error code indicating the | |||
| cause for rejection. For instance, if a mobile node sends a | cause for rejection. For instance, if a mobile node sends a | |||
| registration request that is rejected because it contains the wrong | registration request that is rejected because it contains the wrong | |||
| kind of authentication extension, then the mobile node could retry | kind of authentication extension, then the mobile node could retry | |||
| the registration with a mobile-home authentication extension, since | the registration with a mobile-home authentication extension, since | |||
| the foreign agent and/or home agent in this case will not be | the foreign agent and/or home agent in this case will not be | |||
| configured to demand the alternative authentication data. | configured to demand the alternative authentication data. | |||
| Appendix G. Changes since RFC 2002 | Appendix G. Changes since RFC 3344 | |||
| G.1. Recent Changes | The following revisions to details of the specification in this | |||
| document were made after RFC 3344 was published. A list of changes | ||||
| from RFC 2002 made during the development of RFC 3344 [21] may be | ||||
| found in the latter document. For items marked with issue numbers, | ||||
| more information is available by consulting the MIP4 mailing list | ||||
| archives. | ||||
| The following changes have been made since RFC 3344 was published. | o Showed more bit definitions in the Agent Advertisement message | |||
| For items marked with issue numbers, more information is available by | structure (see Section 2.1.1). New advertisement bits have been | |||
| consulting the MIP4 issues web page, | defined by other specification documents, but not reflected in | |||
| http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip4/ | previous publications of this specification; this has led to | |||
| confusion. Citations for the other specification documents have | ||||
| also been included. | ||||
| o (Issue 6) The behavior of the home agent was changed to avoid | o (Issue 6) The behavior of the home agent was changed to avoid | |||
| mandating error replies to Registration Requests that were | mandating error replies to Registration Requests that were | |||
| invalidated because the foreign agent failed authentication. The | invalidated because the foreign agent failed authentication. The | |||
| intention is to make the home agent more robust against Denial of | intention is to make the home agent more robust against Denial of | |||
| Service attacks in which the malicious device has no intention of | Service attacks in which the malicious device has no intention of | |||
| providing a valid registration request but only wants to congest | providing a valid registration request but only wants to congest | |||
| traffic on the home network. See section Section 3.8.2.1. | traffic on the home network. See section Section 3.8.2.1. | |||
| o Due to non-unique assignment of IPv4 addresses in many domains, it | o Due to non-unique assignment of IPv4 addresses in many domains, it | |||
| skipping to change at page 101, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 101, line 32 ¶ | |||
| the Mobile-Home Authentication extension (section 3.7.3.2). | the Mobile-Home Authentication extension (section 3.7.3.2). | |||
| o (Issue 44) Specified that the address advertised by the foreign | o (Issue 44) Specified that the address advertised by the foreign | |||
| agent in Agent Advertisements is the care-of address offered on | agent in Agent Advertisements is the care-of address offered on | |||
| that network interface, not necessarily the address of the network | that network interface, not necessarily the address of the network | |||
| interface (section 3.7.2.2). | interface (section 3.7.2.2). | |||
| o (Issue 45) Clarification in section 3.7.2.1 that code 77 can only | o (Issue 45) Clarification in section 3.7.2.1 that code 77 can only | |||
| apply to a Registration Request with nonzero lifetime. | apply to a Registration Request with nonzero lifetime. | |||
| G.2. Major Changes | ||||
| o Specification for Destination IP address of Registration Reply | ||||
| transmitted from Foreign Agent, to avoid any possible transmission | ||||
| to IP address 0.0.0.0. | ||||
| o Specification of two new formats for Mobile IP extensions, | ||||
| according to the ideas contained in MIER. | ||||
| o Specification that the SPI of the MN-HA authentication extension | ||||
| is to be used as part of the data over which the authentication | ||||
| algorithm must be computed. | ||||
| o Eliminated Van-Jacobson Compression feature | ||||
| o Specification that foreign agents MAY send advertisements at a | ||||
| rate faster than once per second, but chosen so that the | ||||
| advertisements do not burden the capacity of the local link. For | ||||
| simplicity, the foreign agent now MAY send advertisements at an | ||||
| interval less than 1/3 the advertised ICMP Lifetime. | ||||
| o Specification that foreign agents SHOULD support reverse | ||||
| tunneling, and home agents MUST support decapsulation of reverse | ||||
| tunnels. | ||||
| o Changed the preconfiguration requirements in section 3.6 for the | ||||
| mobile node to reflect the capability, specified in RFC 2794 [2], | ||||
| for the mobile node to identify itself by using its NAI, and then | ||||
| getting a home address from the Registration Reply. | ||||
| o Changed section 3.7.3.1 so that a foreign agent is not required to | ||||
| discard Registration Replies that have a Home Address field that | ||||
| does not match any pending Registration Request. | ||||
| o Allowed registrations to be authenticated by use of a security | ||||
| association between the mobile node and a suitable authentication | ||||
| entity acceptable to the home agent. Defined "Authorization- | ||||
| enabling Extension" to be an authentication extension that makes a | ||||
| registration message acceptable to the recipient. This is needed | ||||
| according to specification in [2]. | ||||
| o Mandated that HMAC-MD5 be used instead of the "prefix+suffix" mode | ||||
| of MD5 as originally mandated in RFC 2002. | ||||
| o Specified that the mobile node SHOULD take the first care-of | ||||
| address in a list offered by a foreign agent, and MAY try each | ||||
| subsequent advertised address in turn if the attempted | ||||
| registrations are rejected by the foreign agent | ||||
| o Clarification that a mobility agent SHOULD only put its own | ||||
| addresses into the initial (i.e., not mobility-related) list of | ||||
| routers in the mobility advertisement. RFC 2002 suggests that a | ||||
| mobility agent might advertise other default routers. | ||||
| o Specification that a mobile node MUST ignore reserved bits in | ||||
| Agent Advertisements, as opposed to discarding such | ||||
| advertisements. In this way, new bits can be defined later, | ||||
| without affecting the ability for mobile nodes to use the | ||||
| advertisements even when the newly defined bits are not | ||||
| understood. Furthermore, foreign agents can set the `R' bit to | ||||
| make sure that new bits are handled by themselves instead of some | ||||
| legacy mobility agent. | ||||
| o Specification that the foreign agent checks to make sure that the | ||||
| indicated home agent address does not belong to any of its network | ||||
| interfaces before relaying a Registration Request. If the check | ||||
| fails, and the foreign agent is not the mobile node's home agent, | ||||
| then the foreign agent rejects the request with code 136 (unknown | ||||
| home agent address). | ||||
| o Specification that, while they are away from the home network, | ||||
| mobile nodes MUST NOT broadcast ARP packets to find the MAC | ||||
| address of another Internet node. Thus, the (possibly empty) list | ||||
| of Router Addresses from the ICMP Router Advertisement portion of | ||||
| the message is not useful for selecting a default router, unless | ||||
| the mobile node has some means not involving broadcast ARP and not | ||||
| specified within this document for obtaining the MAC address of | ||||
| one of the routers in the list. Similarly, in the absence of | ||||
| unspecified mechanisms for obtaining MAC addresses on foreign | ||||
| networks, the mobile node MUST ignore redirects to other routers | ||||
| on foreign networks. | ||||
| o Specification that a foreign agent MUST NOT use broadcast ARP for | ||||
| a mobile node's MAC address on a foreign network. It may obtain | ||||
| the MAC address by copying the information from an Agent | ||||
| Solicitation or a Registration Request transmitted from a mobile | ||||
| node. | ||||
| o Specification that a foreign agent's ARP cache for the mobile | ||||
| node's IP address MUST NOT be allowed to expire before the mobile | ||||
| node's visitor list entry expires, unless the foreign agent has | ||||
| some way other than broadcast ARP to refresh its MAC address | ||||
| associated to the mobile node's IP address. | ||||
| o At the end of section 4.6, clarified that a home agent MUST NOT | ||||
| make any changes to the way it performs proxy ARP after it rejects | ||||
| an invalid deregistration request. | ||||
| o In section 4.2.3, specification that multihomed home agents MUST | ||||
| use the the address sent to the mobile node in the home agent | ||||
| field of the registration reply as the source address in the outer | ||||
| IP header of the encapsulated datagram. | ||||
| o Inserted 'T' bit into its proper place in the Registration Request | ||||
| message format (section 3.3). | ||||
| G.3. Minor Changes | ||||
| o Allowed registration replies to be processed by the mobile node, | ||||
| even in the absence of any Mobile-Home Authentication extension, | ||||
| when containing rejection code by the foreign agent. | ||||
| o Specification that the foreign agent MAY configure a maximum | ||||
| number of pending registrations that it is willing to maintain | ||||
| (typically 5). Additional registrations SHOULD then be rejected | ||||
| by the foreign agent with code 66. The foreign agent MAY delete | ||||
| any pending Registration Request after the request has been | ||||
| pending for more than 7 seconds; in this case, the foreign agent | ||||
| SHOULD reject the Request with code 78 (registration timeout). | ||||
| o Relaxation of the requirement that, when a mobile node has joined | ||||
| a multicast group at the router on the foreign network, the mobile | ||||
| node MUST use its home address as the source IP address for | ||||
| multicast packets. | ||||
| o Clarification that a mobility agent MAY use different settings for | ||||
| each of the 'R', 'H', and 'F' bits on different network | ||||
| interfaces. | ||||
| o Replacement of the terminology "recursive tunneling" by the | ||||
| terminology "nested tunneling". | ||||
| o Specification that the mobile node MAY use the IP source address | ||||
| of an agent advertisement as its default router address. | ||||
| o Clarification that keys with arbitrary binary values MUST be | ||||
| supported as part of mobility security associations. | ||||
| o Specification that the default value may be chosen as 7 seconds, | ||||
| for allowable time skews between a home agent and mobile node | ||||
| using timestamps for replay protection. Further specification | ||||
| that this value SHOULD be greater than 3 seconds. | ||||
| o Specification that Registration Requests with the 'D' bit set to | ||||
| 0, and specifying a care-of address not offered by the foreign | ||||
| agent, MUST be rejected with code 77 (invalid care-of address). | ||||
| o Clarification that the foreign agent SHOULD consider its own | ||||
| maximum value when handling the Lifetime field of the Registration | ||||
| Reply. | ||||
| o Clarification that the home agent MUST ignore the 'B' bit (as | ||||
| opposed to rejecting the Registration Request) if it does not | ||||
| support broadcasts. | ||||
| o Advice about the impossibility of using dynamic home agent | ||||
| discovery in the case when routers change the IP destination | ||||
| address of a datagram from a subnet-directed broadcast address to | ||||
| 255.255.255.255 before injecting it into the destination subnet. | ||||
| o Clarified that when an Agent Advertisement is unicast to a mobile | ||||
| node, the specific IP home address of a mobile node MAY be used as | ||||
| the destination IP address. | ||||
| o Included a reference to RFC 2290 within appendix B, which deals | ||||
| with PPP operation. | ||||
| o Created IANA Considerations section | ||||
| o In section 3.8.3, clarified that a home agent SHOULD arrange the | ||||
| selection of a home address for a mobile node when the | ||||
| Registration Reply contains a zero Home Address. | ||||
| G.4. Changes since RFC3344 | ||||
| This section lists the changes between this document and the previous | ||||
| version of the Mobile IPv4 Proposed Standard, RFC 3344 [41]. | ||||
| o Created a new error code for use when a Foreign Agent can detect | o Created a new error code for use when a Foreign Agent can detect | |||
| that the Home Agent address field is incorrect. | that the Home Agent address field is incorrect. | |||
| o Prohibited the use of the Foreign-Home Authorization Extension on | o Prohibited the use of the Foreign-Home Authorization Extension on | |||
| deregistration messages. | deregistration messages. | |||
| o Cleaned up some more wording having to do with authorization- | o Cleaned up some more wording having to do with authorization- | |||
| enabling extensions. | enabling extensions. | |||
| o For consistency, changed some wording about copying UDP ports. | o For consistency, changed some wording about copying UDP ports. | |||
| o Added wording to clearly not disallow dynamically configuring | o Added wording to clearly not disallow dynamically configuring | |||
| netmask and security information at the mobile node. | netmask and security information at the mobile node. | |||
| o Revamped Changes section | o Revamped Changes section. | |||
| o Updated citations. | o Updated citations. | |||
| Appendix H. Example Messages | Appendix H. Example Messages | |||
| H.1. Example ICMP Agent Advertisement Message Format | H.1. Example ICMP Agent Advertisement Message Format | |||
| 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 | Code | Checksum | | | Type | Code | Checksum | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Num Addrs |Addr Entry Size| Lifetime | | | Num Addrs |Addr Entry Size| Lifetime | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Router Address[1] | | | Router Address[1] | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Preference Level[1] | | | Preference Level[1] | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Router Address[2] | | | Router Address[2] | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Preference Level[2] | | | Preference Level[2] | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | .... | | | .... | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Type = 16 | Length | Sequence Number | | | Type = 16 | Length | Sequence Number | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Registration Lifetime |R|B|H|F|M|G|r|T| reserved | | | Registration Lifetime |R|B|H|F|M|G|r|T|U|X|I|reserved | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Care-of Address[1] | | | Care-of Address[1] | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Care-of Address[2] | | | Care-of Address[2] | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | .... | | | .... | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| : Optional Extensions : | : Optional Extensions : | |||
| : .... ...... ...... : | : .... ...... ...... : | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| H.2. Example Registration Request Message Format | H.2. Example Registration Request Message Format | |||
| The UDP header is followed by the Mobile IP fields shown below: | The UDP header is followed by the Mobile IP fields shown below: | |||
| 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 = 1 |S|B|D|M|G|r|T|x| Lifetime | | | Type = 1 |S|B|D|M|G|r|T|x| Lifetime | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Home Address | | | Home Address | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Home Agent | | | Home Agent | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Care-of Address | | | Care-of Address | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| + Identification + | + Identification + | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Optional Non-Auth Extensions for HA ... | | | Optional Non-Auth Extensions for HA ... | | |||
| | ( variable length ) | | | ( variable length ) | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Type =32 | Length | SPI | | | Type =32 | Length | SPI | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | SPI (cont..) | | | | SPI (cont..) | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | |||
| : MN-HA Authenticator ( variable length ) : | : MN-HA Authenticator ( variable length ) : | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| : Optional Non-Auth Extensions for FA ......... | : Optional Non-Auth Extensions for FA ......... | |||
| : Optional MN-FA Authentication Extension... | : Optional MN-FA Authentication Extension... | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| H.3. Example Registration Reply Message Format | H.3. Example Registration Reply Message Format | |||
| The UDP header is followed by the Mobile IP fields shown below: | The UDP header is followed by the Mobile IP fields shown below: | |||
| 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 = 3 | Code | Lifetime | | | Type = 3 | Code | Lifetime | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Home Address | | | Home Address | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Home Agent | | | Home Agent | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| + Identification + | + Identification + | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Optional HA Non-Auth Extensions ... | | | Optional HA Non-Auth Extensions ... | | |||
| | ( variable length ) | | | ( variable length ) | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Type =32 | Length | SPI | | | Type =32 | Length | SPI | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | SPI (cont...) | | | | SPI (cont...) | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | |||
| : MN-HA Authenticator ( variable length ) : | : MN-HA Authenticator ( variable length ) : | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| : Optional Extensions used by FA......... | : Optional Extensions used by FA......... | |||
| : Optional MN-FA Authentication Extension... | : Optional MN-FA Authentication Extension... | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Author's Address | Author's Address | |||
| Charles E. Perkins | Charles E. Perkins | |||
| WiChorus Inc. | WiChorus Inc. | |||
| 3590 N. 1st Street, Suite 300 | 3590 N. 1st Street, Suite 300 | |||
| San Jose, CA 95134 | San Jose, CA 95134 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Email: charliep@computer.org | Email: charliep@computer.org | |||
| End of changes. 93 change blocks. | ||||
| 365 lines changed or deleted | 242 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/ | ||||