idnits 2.17.1 draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 8, 2017) is 2513 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring' is defined on line 198, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3315' is defined on line 209, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3633' is defined on line 214, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7934' is defined on line 224, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-10 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3633 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DMM Working Group W. Feng 3 Internet-Draft D. Moses 4 Intended status: Standards Track Intel 5 Expires: December 10, 2017 June 8, 2017 7 Router Advertisement Prefix Option Extension for On-Demand Mobility 8 draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-00 10 Abstract 12 Router Advertisement / Router Solicitation is one of the ways for 13 hosts to establish network IPv6 connectivity configuration. This 14 document describes an extension to the router advertisement prefix 15 information option to allow the router to specify mobility service 16 type availability to mobile hosts. Mobile hosts can then configure 17 their IP address to the preferred type of mobile connectivity. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2017. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 3. Router Advertisement Prefix Information Option . . . . . . . 2 56 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 1. Introduction 65 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different types of mobility 66 related network services provided by access network to mobile hosts. 67 In particular, it defines different types of prefix continuity types 68 as mobile nodes move between different points of attachments. 70 This document defines extensions to the prefix information option in 71 the router advertisement message ([RFC4861]) to allow the router to 72 convey mobility services associated with an Ipv6 prefix. 74 2. Notational Conventions 76 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 77 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 78 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 80 3. Router Advertisement Prefix Information Option 82 IP prefixes are conveyed in Router Advertisement messages through the 83 Prefix Information Option field ([RFC4861]). These prefix 84 information option fields are used to allow hosts to configure their 85 IPv6 addresses. 87 For distributed mobility management, there is a need for a network to 88 be able to convey different prefixes for different connectivity 89 scenarios. [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different 90 service continuity requirements including: Non-Persistent, Session- 91 Lasting, Fixed, and Graceful-replacement. Currently, however, there 92 is no way for a router to specify the continuity type through a 93 router advertisement message. 95 This document proposes modifying the prefix information option within 96 the router advertisement message to include mobility service options 97 that it is offering to mobile hosts that are attached. 99 The modified prefix information option fields are shown in the 100 following figure: 102 0 1 2 3 103 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 1 104 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 105 | Type | Length | Prefix Length |L|A| Rsv1|SrvTp| 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 | Valid Lifetime | 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 | Preferred Lifetime | 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 | Reserved2 | 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | | 114 + + 115 | | 116 + Prefix + 117 | | 118 + + 119 | | 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 Fields: 124 Type 3 126 Length 4 128 Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits in 129 the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 130 128. 132 L 1-bit on-link flag. When set, indicates that this 133 prefix can be used for on-link determination. 135 A 1-bit autonomous address-configuration flag. When set 136 indicates that this prefix can be used for stateless 137 address configuration. 139 Rsv1 3-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by 140 the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 142 SrvTp 3-bit field that specifies the service type. The 143 field can have the following values: 145 Non-Persistent - a non-persistent IP prefix (1) 147 Session-Lasting - a session-lasting IP prefix (2) 149 Fixed - a fixed IP prefix (3) 151 Graceful-replacement - a graceful-replacement IP 152 prefix (4) 154 The definition of these service types is available in 155 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility]. 157 0 is reserved and should not be used. All other values (5-7) are 158 reserved for future use. 160 The value of the Service Type indicates the type of continuity 161 service committed by the network for the associated IPv6 prefix. 163 Once an IPv6 prefix type is provided, any subsequent messages 164 involving this prefix (lease renewal - for example) must include the 165 IPv6 Continuity Service option with the same service type that was 166 assigned by the server during the initial allocation. 168 Given the lsit of IPv6 prefixes and their associated mobility service 169 type, the mobile host can then configure its IP address to the 170 appropriate service required by the application 172 Mobile hosts that do not support this new option should ignore the 173 prefix information option. 175 Routers should also send an additional prefix information option 176 without the session-type field from time to time for hosts that do 177 not support this new format. 179 4. Security Considerations 181 There are no specific security considerations for this option. 183 5. IANA Considerations 185 TBD 187 6. References 189 6.1. Normative References 191 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 192 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 193 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 194 . 196 6.2. Informative References 198 [I-D.ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring] 199 Chan, A., Wei, X., Lee, J., Jeon, S., Petrescu, A., and F. 200 Templin, "Distributed Mobility Anchoring", draft-ietf-dmm- 201 distributed-mobility-anchoring-05 (work in progress), May 202 2017. 204 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] 205 Yegin, A., Moses, D., Kweon, K., Lee, J., Park, J., and S. 206 Jeon, "On Demand Mobility Management", draft-ietf-dmm- 207 ondemand-mobility-10 (work in progress), January 2017. 209 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, 210 C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 211 for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July 212 2003, . 214 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 215 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 216 DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003, 217 . 219 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 220 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 221 DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, 222 . 224 [RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi, 225 "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204, 226 RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016, 227 . 229 Authors' Addresses 230 Wu-chi Feng 231 Intel 232 Hillsboro 233 USA 235 Email: wu-chix.feng@intel.com 237 Danny Moses 238 Intel 239 Petah Tikva 240 Israel 242 Email: danny.moses@intel.com