idnits 2.17.1 draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-03.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 (September 12, 2018) is 2052 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 310, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3315' is defined on line 321, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3633' is defined on line 326, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7934' is defined on line 336, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315 (Obsoleted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: March 16, 2019 Intel 6 September 12, 2018 8 Router Advertisement Prefix Option Extension for On-Demand Mobility 9 draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-03 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 two approches to allowing a router to specify 16 mobility service type availability to mobile hosts. Mobile hosts can 17 then configure their IP address to the preferred type of mobile 18 connectivity. Two possibilities are considered: (i) creating an 19 extension to the router advertisement prefix information option to 20 allow the router to specify mobility connectivity types, and (ii) 21 specifying a new RA options that allows the router to specify the 22 mobility connectivity types. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2019. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. Router Advertisement Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3.1. Modifying PIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3.2. Adding a new RA option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 1. Introduction 72 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different types of mobility 73 related network services provided by access network to mobile hosts. 74 In particular, it defines different types of prefix continuity types 75 as mobile nodes move between different points of attachments. 77 This document proposes two such options to the router advertisement 78 message ([RFC4861]) to allow the router to convey mobility services 79 associated with an Ipv6 prefix. The possibilities considered are: 80 (i) creating an extension to the router advertisement prefix 81 information option to allow the router to specify mobility 82 connectivity types, and (ii) specifying a new RA options that allows 83 the router to specify the mobility connectivity types. 85 For (i), the prefix information option is extended to support the 86 specification of mobility type. In (ii), a new RA option field is 87 provided to do the same. 89 2. Notational Conventions 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 95 3. Router Advertisement Extensions 97 IP prefixes are conveyed in Router Advertisement messages through the 98 Prefix Information Option field ([RFC4861]). These prefix 99 information option fields are used to allow hosts to configure their 100 IPv6 addresses. 102 For distributed mobility management, there is a need for a network to 103 be able to convey different prefixes for different connectivity 104 scenarios. [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different 105 service continuity requirements including: Non-Persistent, Session- 106 Lasting, Fixed, and Graceful-replacement. Currently, however, there 107 is no way for a router to specify the continuity type through a 108 router advertisement message. 110 This document proposes two possibilities for modifying the router 111 advertisement message to include mobility service options that it is 112 offering to mobile hosts that are attached: (i) creating an extension 113 to the router advertisement prefix information option (PIO) to allow 114 the router to specify mobility connectivity types, and (ii) 115 specifying a new RA options that allows the router to specify the 116 mobility connectivity types. 118 3.1. Modifying PIO 120 The first option is to modify the PIO. The advantages of this 121 approach are that it is semantically in line with the intended 122 function. That is, specifying prefix options. This, however, 123 requires the modification of several bits in the existing PIO to 124 support the specification of the type. 126 The modified prefix information option fields are shown in the 127 following figure: 129 0 1 2 3 130 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 1 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 | Type | Length | Prefix Length |L|A| Rsv1|SrvTp| 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 134 | Valid Lifetime | 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 | Preferred Lifetime | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 | Reserved2 | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 140 | | 141 + + 142 | | 143 + Prefix + 144 | | 145 + + 146 | | 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 149 Fields: 151 Type 3 153 Length 4 155 Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits in 156 the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 157 128. 159 L 1-bit on-link flag. When set, indicates that this 160 prefix can be used for on-link determination. 162 A 1-bit autonomous address-configuration flag. When set 163 indicates that this prefix can be used for stateless 164 address configuration. 166 Rsv1 3-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by 167 the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 169 SrvTp 3-bit field that specifies the service type. The 170 field can have the following values: 172 Non-Persistent - a non-persistent IP prefix (1) 174 Session-Lasting - a session-lasting IP prefix (2) 175 Fixed - a fixed IP prefix (3) 177 Graceful-replacement - a graceful-replacement IP 178 prefix (4) 180 The definition of these service types is available in 181 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility]. 183 0 is reserved and should not be used. All other values (5-7) are 184 reserved for future use. 186 The value of the Service Type indicates the type of continuity 187 service committed by the network for the associated IPv6 prefix. 189 Once an IPv6 prefix type is provided, any subsequent messages 190 involving this prefix (lease renewal - for example) must include the 191 IPv6 Continuity Service option with the same service type that was 192 assigned by the server during the initial allocation. 194 Given the list of IPv6 prefixes and their associated mobility service 195 type, the mobile host can then configure its IP address to the 196 appropriate service required by the application 198 Mobile hosts that do not support this new option should ignore the 199 prefix information option. 201 Routers should also send an additional prefix information option 202 without the session-type field from time to time for hosts that do 203 not support this new format. 205 3.2. Adding a new RA option 207 The second approach is to add a new RA option alongside the existing 208 PIO (and other RA options). The advantage of this approach are that 209 it leaves the existing PIO untouched. Furthermore, hosts that 210 receive this option with the type that they do not understand can 211 simply disregard it. 213 The new RA option specification is shown in the following figure: 215 0 1 2 3 216 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 1 217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 218 | Type | Length | Prefix Length |L|A| Rsv1|SrvTp| 219 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 220 | Valid Lifetime | 221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 | Preferred Lifetime | 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 | Reserved2 | 225 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 226 | | 227 + + 228 | | 229 + Prefix + 230 | | 231 + + 232 | | 233 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 235 Fields: 237 Type Need to define new Type # 239 Length 4 241 Prefix Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The number of leading bits in 242 the Prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 243 128. 245 L 1-bit on-link flag. When set, indicates that this 246 prefix can be used for on-link determination. 248 A 1-bit autonomous address-configuration flag. When set 249 indicates that this prefix can be used for stateless 250 address configuration. 252 Rsv1 3-bit unused field. It MUST be initialized to zero by 253 the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 255 SrvTp 3-bit field that specifies the service type. The 256 field can have the following values: 258 Non-Persistent - a non-persistent IP prefix (1) 260 Session-Lasting - a session-lasting IP prefix (2) 261 Fixed - a fixed IP prefix (3) 263 Graceful-replacement - a graceful-replacement IP 264 prefix (4) 266 The definition of these service types is available in 267 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility]. 269 0 is reserved and should not be used. All other values (5-7) are 270 reserved for future use. 272 The value of the Service Type indicates the type of continuity 273 service committed by the network for the associated IPv6 prefix. 275 Once an IPv6 prefix type is provided, any subsequent messages 276 involving this prefix (lease renewal - for example) must include the 277 IPv6 Continuity Service option with the same service type that was 278 assigned by the server during the initial allocation. 280 Given the list of IPv6 prefixes and their associated mobility service 281 type, the mobile host can then configure its IP address to the 282 appropriate service required by the application 284 Mobile hosts that do not support this new option should ignore the 285 prefix information option. 287 Routers should also send an additional prefix information option 288 without the session-type field from time to time for hosts that do 289 not support this new format. 291 4. Security Considerations 293 There are no specific security considerations for this option. 295 5. IANA Considerations 297 TBD 299 6. References 301 6.1. Normative References 303 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 304 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 305 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 306 . 308 6.2. Informative References 310 [I-D.ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring] 311 Chan, A., Wei, X., Lee, J., Jeon, S., and C. Bernardos, 312 "Distributed Mobility Anchoring", draft-ietf-dmm- 313 distributed-mobility-anchoring-11 (work in progress), 314 August 2018. 316 [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] 317 Yegin, A., Moses, D., Kweon, K., Lee, J., Park, J., and S. 318 Jeon, "On Demand Mobility Management", draft-ietf-dmm- 319 ondemand-mobility-15 (work in progress), July 2018. 321 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, 322 C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 323 for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July 324 2003, . 326 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 327 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 328 DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003, 329 . 331 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 332 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 333 DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, 334 . 336 [RFC7934] Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S., and D. Schinazi, 337 "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204, 338 RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016, 339 . 341 Authors' Addresses 343 Wu-chi Feng 344 Portland State Univ. 345 Hillsboro 346 USA 348 Email: wuchi@pdx.edu 349 Danny Moses 350 Intel 351 Petah Tikva 352 Israel 354 Email: danny.moses@intel.com