idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 205. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 216. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 223. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 229. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 10 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (March 19, 2007) is 6220 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) == Missing Reference: 'NEMOv4' is mentioned on line 142, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base' is defined on line 151, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group G. Tsirtsis 2 Internet-Draft V. Park 3 Intended status: Standards Track V. Narayanan 4 Expires: September 20, 2007 Qualcomm 5 K. Leung 6 Cisco 7 March 19, 2007 9 Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4 10 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-00.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 20, 2007. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 41 Abstract 43 The base NEMOv4 specification defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 for 44 mobile networks. This specification defines a dynamic prefix 45 allocation mechanism. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 3.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 55 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 56 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 57 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10 59 1. Requirements notation 61 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 62 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 63 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 65 2. Introduction 67 The base NEMOv4 specification [NEMOv4] defines extensions to Mobile 68 IPv4 [RFC3344] for mobile networks. This specification adds support 69 for dynamic allocation of mobile prefixes by the home agent. 71 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation 73 The following extension is defined according to this specification. 75 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations 77 [NEMOv4] defines that the prefix field of the mobile network request 78 extension can not be set to zero. 80 According to this specification, however, a mobile client MAY include 81 one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field 82 set to zero. Such mobile network request extensions indicate that 83 the mobile client requests mobile network prefix(es) to be assigned 84 to it by the home agent. In this case, the mobile client MAY set the 85 prefix length field of such extensions to zero or to a length of its 86 choice as a hint to the home agent. According to this specification, 87 mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to zero 88 MAY be included in a registration request message either during 89 initial registration or during a subsequent registration. 91 When a mobile client receives a registration reply it MUST process it 92 as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and [NEMOv4]. If one or more network 93 acknowledgement extension are included with the Code field set to 94 "Success" the mobile client SHOULD treat the prefixes in the 95 corresponding prefix fields as allocated prefixes and create the 96 appropriate bindings as defined in [NEMOv4]. 98 If in response to a registration request with a mobile network 99 request extension with the prefix field set to zero, a mobile client 100 receives a registration reply with a Code field set to 70 "poorly 101 formed request", it may use it as a hint that the home agent does not 102 support dynamic prefix allocation. 104 [Ed. Note: alternatively [NEMOv4] should define an appropriate Code 105 in the Mobile Network Acknowledgment extension e.g., "Bad Prefix" 107 3.2. Home Agent Considerations 109 A home agent receiving a mobile network request extension with the 110 prefix field set to zero MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement 111 extension [NEMOv4] with the prefix field set to the prefix allocated 112 to the mobile client. The length of that prefix is at the discretion 113 of the home agent. The home agent MAY take into account the prefix 114 length hint if one is included in the mobile network request 115 extension. Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain 116 the prefix registration table as defined in [NEMOv4]. Alternatively 117 the home agent MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement extension 118 with the Code field set to one of the negative codes defined in 120 [NEMOv4]. 122 Dynamic mobile prefix allocation as defined in this specification MAY 123 be combined with dynamic home address allocation as defined in MIPv4 124 [RFC3344]. In other words the home address field of the registration 125 request message MAY be set to zero while the message also includes 126 one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field 127 also set to zero. 129 Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain the prefix 130 registration table as defined in [NEMOv4]. 132 For dynamic prefix allocation the mobile client's home address MAY be 133 used to identify the client if it is not set to zero. If the home 134 Otherwise, as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and NAI [RFC2794], the NAI 135 [RFC2794] extension needs to be included in the registration request, 136 in which case the same extension SHOULD be used to identify the 137 mobile client for prefix allocation purposes. 139 4. Security Considerations 141 This specification operates in the security constraints and 142 requirements of MIPv4 [RFC3344], NAI [RFC2794] and [NEMOv4]. 144 Home agent implementations SHOULD take steps to prevent address 145 exhaustion attacks. One way to limit the effectiveness of such an 146 attack is to limit the number and size of prefixes any one mobile 147 router can be allocated. 149 5. Normative References 151 [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] 152 Leung, K., "IPv4 Network Mobility (NEMO) Protocol", 153 draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-00 (work in progress), 154 March 2007. 156 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 157 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 159 [RFC2794] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access 160 Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000. 162 [RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, 163 August 2002. 165 Authors' Addresses 167 George Tsirtsis 168 Qualcomm 170 Phone: +908-443-8174 171 Email: tsirtsis@qualcomm.com 173 Vincent Park 174 Qualcomm 176 Phone: +908-947-7084 177 Email: vpark@qualcomm.com 179 Vidya Narayana 180 Qualcomm 182 Phone: +858-845-2483 183 Email: vidyan@qualcomm.com 185 Kent Leung 186 Cisco 188 Phone: +408-526-5030 189 Email: kleung@cisco.com 191 Full Copyright Statement 193 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 195 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 196 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 197 retain all their rights. 199 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 200 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 201 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 202 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 203 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 204 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 205 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 207 Intellectual Property 209 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 210 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 211 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 212 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 213 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 214 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 215 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 216 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 218 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 219 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 220 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 221 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 222 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 223 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 225 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 226 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 227 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 228 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 229 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 231 Acknowledgment 233 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 234 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).