idnits 2.17.1 draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-01.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 (November 25, 2017) is 2337 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 199, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3315' is defined on line 210, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3633' is defined on line 215, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7934' is defined on line 225, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-12 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315 (Obsoleted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 PSU 4 Intended status: Standards Track D. Moses 5 Expires: May 29, 2018 Intel 6 November 25, 2017 8 Router Advertisement Prefix Option Extension for On-Demand Mobility 9 draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-01 11 Abstract 13 Router Advertisement / Router Solicitation is one of the ways for 14 hosts to establish network IPv6 connectivity configuration. This 15 document describes an extension to the router advertisement prefix 16 information option to allow the router to specify mobility service 17 type availability to mobile hosts. Mobile hosts can then configure 18 their IP address to the preferred type of mobile connectivity. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2018. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 3. Router Advertisement Prefix Information Option . . . . . . . 2 57 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 1. Introduction 66 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different types of mobility 67 related network services provided by access network to mobile hosts. 68 In particular, it defines different types of prefix continuity types 69 as mobile nodes move between different points of attachments. 71 This document defines extensions to the prefix information option in 72 the router advertisement message ([RFC4861]) to allow the router to 73 convey mobility services associated with an Ipv6 prefix. 75 2. Notational Conventions 77 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 78 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 79 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 81 3. Router Advertisement Prefix Information Option 83 IP prefixes are conveyed in Router Advertisement messages through the 84 Prefix Information Option field ([RFC4861]). These prefix 85 information option fields are used to allow hosts to configure their 86 IPv6 addresses. 88 For distributed mobility management, there is a need for a network to 89 be able to convey different prefixes for different connectivity 90 scenarios. [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different 91 service continuity requirements including: Non-Persistent, Session- 92 Lasting, Fixed, and Graceful-replacement. Currently, however, there 93 is no way for a router to specify the continuity type through a 94 router advertisement message. 96 This document proposes modifying the prefix information option within 97 the router advertisement message to include mobility service options 98 that it is offering to mobile hosts that are attached. 100 The modified prefix information option fields are shown in the 101 following figure: 103 0 1 2 3 104 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 1 105 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 106 | Type | Length | Prefix Length |L|A| Rsv1|SrvTp| 107 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 108 | Valid Lifetime | 109 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 110 | Preferred Lifetime | 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 112 | Reserved2 | 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | | 115 + + 116 | | 117 + Prefix + 118 | | 119 + + 120 | | 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 Fields: 125 Type 3 127 Length 4 129 Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits in 130 the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 131 128. 133 L 1-bit on-link flag. When set, indicates that this 134 prefix can be used for on-link determination. 136 A 1-bit autonomous address-configuration flag. When set 137 indicates that this prefix can be used for stateless 138 address configuration. 140 Rsv1 3-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by 141 the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 143 SrvTp 3-bit field that specifies the service type. The 144 field can have the following values: 146 Non-Persistent - a non-persistent IP prefix (1) 148 Session-Lasting - a session-lasting IP prefix (2) 150 Fixed - a fixed IP prefix (3) 152 Graceful-replacement - a graceful-replacement IP 153 prefix (4) 155 The definition of these service types is available in 156 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility]. 158 0 is reserved and should not be used. All other values (5-7) are 159 reserved for future use. 161 The value of the Service Type indicates the type of continuity 162 service committed by the network for the associated IPv6 prefix. 164 Once an IPv6 prefix type is provided, any subsequent messages 165 involving this prefix (lease renewal - for example) must include the 166 IPv6 Continuity Service option with the same service type that was 167 assigned by the server during the initial allocation. 169 Given the lsit of IPv6 prefixes and their associated mobility service 170 type, the mobile host can then configure its IP address to the 171 appropriate service required by the application 173 Mobile hosts that do not support this new option should ignore the 174 prefix information option. 176 Routers should also send an additional prefix information option 177 without the session-type field from time to time for hosts that do 178 not support this new format. 180 4. Security Considerations 182 There are no specific security considerations for this option. 184 5. IANA Considerations 186 TBD 188 6. References 190 6.1. Normative References 192 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 193 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 194 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 195 . 197 6.2. Informative References 199 [I-D.ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring] 200 Chan, A., Wei, X., Lee, J., Jeon, S., Petrescu, A., and F. 201 Templin, "Distributed Mobility Anchoring", draft-ietf-dmm- 202 distributed-mobility-anchoring-07 (work in progress), 203 November 2017. 205 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] 206 Yegin, A., Moses, D., Kweon, K., Lee, J., Park, J., and S. 207 Jeon, "On Demand Mobility Management", draft-ietf-dmm- 208 ondemand-mobility-12 (work in progress), July 2017. 210 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, 211 C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 212 for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July 213 2003, . 215 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 216 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 217 DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003, 218 . 220 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 221 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 222 DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, 223 . 225 [RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi, 226 "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204, 227 RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016, 228 . 230 Authors' Addresses 231 Wu-chi Feng 232 Portland State Univ. 233 Hillsboro 234 USA 236 Email: wuchi@pdx.edu 238 Danny Moses 239 Intel 240 Petah Tikva 241 Israel 243 Email: danny.moses@intel.com