idnits 2.17.1 draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-06.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5213]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5213, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2007-04-12) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (December 15, 2011) is 4506 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) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5342 (Obsoleted by RFC 7042) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 V6OPS WG S. Gundavelli 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Updates: 5213 (if approved) December 15, 2011 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: June 17, 2012 8 Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6 9 draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-06.txt 11 Abstract 13 Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] requires all the mobile access gateways 14 to use a fixed link-local and link-layer addresses on any of its 15 access links that it shares with the mobile nodes. This was intended 16 to ensure a mobile node does not detect any change with respect to 17 its layer-3 attachment even after it roams from one mobile access 18 gateway to another. In the absence of any reserved addresses for 19 this use, it requires coordination across vendors and the manual 20 configuration of these addresses on all the mobility elements in a 21 Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. This document attempts to simplify this 22 operational requirement by making reservation for special addresses 23 that can be used for this purpose and it also updates RFC 5213. 25 Status of this Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2012. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. Conventions & Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 1. Introduction 73 Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is a network-based mobility management 74 protocol that enables IP mobility support for a mobile node without 75 requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. The 76 mobility elements in the network ensure that the mobile node does not 77 detect any change with respect to its layer-3 attachment even after 78 it roams from one mobile access gateway to another and changes its 79 point of attachment in the network. All the mobile access gateways 80 in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 use a fixed link-local address and a fixed 81 link-layer address on any of its access links that they share with 82 the mobile nodes. This essentially ensures a mobile node after 83 performing an handoff does not detect any change with respect to the 84 IP network configuration. 86 Although the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification [RFC5213] requires 87 the use of a fixed link-local and a fixed link-layer address, it did 88 not reserve any specific addresses for this purpose and this is 89 proving to be a operational challenge in deployments involving multi- 90 vendor equipment. To address this problem, this specification makes 91 the following two reservations. 93 1. This specification reserves one single Ethernet unicast address, 94 (IANA-TBD1), for the use of Proxy Mobile IPv6. This reserved 95 link-layer address SHOULD be used by the mobile access gateway in 96 a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, on all of the access links that it 97 shares with the mobile nodes. The protocol configuration 98 variable, FixedMAGLinkLayerAddressOnAllAccessLinks [RFC5213], 99 SHOULD be set to this reserved address. The mobile access 100 gateway can use this address in all packet communication with the 101 mobile node on the access links. Considerations from [RFC5342] 102 apply with respect to the use of Ethernet parameters in IETF 103 protocols. This address is allocated from the registry, "IANA 104 Ethernet Address block - Unicast Use". 106 2. This specification reserves an IPv6 interface identifier, (IANA- 107 TBD2). This interface identifier is a modified EUI-64 interface 108 identifier generated from the allocated Ethernet unicast address 109 (IANA-TBD1). The reserved IPv6 interface identifier SHOULD be 110 used by all the mobile access gateways in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 111 domain on all of the access links that it shares with the mobile 112 nodes. The protocol configuration variable, 113 FixedMAGLinkLocalAddressOnAllAccessLinks [RFC5213], SHOULD be set 114 to the link-local address generated using this reserved IPv6 115 interface identifier. The mobile access gateway can use this 116 link-local address generated using this reserved IPv6 interface 117 identifier in all Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] related 118 communication with the mobile node. 120 2. Conventions & Terminology 122 2.1. Conventions 124 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 125 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 126 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 128 2.2. Terminology 130 All the mobility related terms used in this document are to be 131 interpreted as defined in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications 132 [RFC5213], [RFC5844]. All the IPv6 addressing related terminology is 133 to be interpreted as specified in [RFC4291]. 135 3. IANA Considerations 137 This document requires the following two IANA actions. 139 o Action-1: This specification reserves one single Ethernet unicast 140 address, (IANA-TBD1), for Proxy Mobile IPv6. This address needs 141 to be reserved from the block. "IANA Ethernet Address block - 142 Unicast Use". 144 o Action-2: This specification reserves an IPv6 interface identifier 145 (IANA-TBD2) for Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] from the registry, 146 "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" [RFC5453]. This interface 147 identifier is a modified EUI-64 interface identifier generated 148 from the allocated Ethernet unicast address (IANA-TBD1) as 149 specified in Appendix A of [RFC4291]. 151 4. Security Considerations 153 All the security considerations specified in [RFC5213], and [RFC5844] 154 continue to apply to the mobility elements in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 155 domain, when enabled to conform to this specification. Specifically, 156 the issues related to the use of fixed link-local and link-layer 157 address documented in section 6.9.3 of the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 158 specification are equally relevant here. In some sense, the 159 reservations made in this specification results in the use of the 160 same set of link-local and link-layer address values beyond a single 161 Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, thereby expanding the scope of the existing 162 problem related to asserting ownership on the configured addresses 163 from a single domain to multi-domain. Future work may be needed to 164 address these issues. 166 5. Acknowledgements 168 The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Dave Thaler for all the 169 discussions around the use of fixed link-local and link-layer 170 address, during the standardization of Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213]. 171 The authors would also like to thank Tero Kivinen, Donald Eastlake 172 3rd, Stephen Farrell, Suresh Krishnan, Margaret Wasserman, Thomas 173 Narten, Basavaraj Patil and Eric Voit for their reviews and 174 participations in the discussions related to this document. 176 6. References 178 6.1. Normative References 180 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 181 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 183 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 184 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 186 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., 187 and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008. 189 [RFC5453] Krishnan, S., "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers", 190 RFC 5453, February 2009. 192 6.2. Informative References 194 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 195 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 196 September 2007. 198 [RFC5342] Eastlake, D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage 199 for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342, 200 September 2008. 202 [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy 203 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010. 205 Author's Address 207 Sri Gundavelli 208 Cisco 209 170 West Tasman Drive 210 San Jose, CA 95134 211 USA 213 Email: sgundave@cisco.com