idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-01.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 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 217. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 228. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 235. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 241. 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 11 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 (November 6, 2007) is 6014 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-06 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Tsirtsis 3 Internet-Draft V. Park 4 Intended status: Standards Track V. Narayanan 5 Expires: May 9, 2008 Qualcomm 6 K. Leung 7 Cisco 8 November 6, 2007 10 Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4 11 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-01.txt 13 Status of this Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 9, 2008. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 42 Abstract 44 The base NEMOv4 specification defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 for 45 mobile networks. This specification defines a dynamic prefix 46 allocation mechanism. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 53 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 3.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 57 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 59 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 61 1. Requirements notation 63 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 64 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 65 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 67 2. Introduction 69 The base NEMOv4 specification [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] defines 70 extensions to Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] for mobile networks. This 71 specification adds support for dynamic allocation of mobile prefixes 72 by the home agent. 74 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation 76 The following extension is defined according to this specification. 78 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations 80 [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] defines that the prefix field of the 81 mobile network request extension can not be set to zero. 83 According to this specification, however, a mobile client MAY include 84 one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field 85 set to zero. Such mobile network request extensions indicate that 86 the mobile client requests mobile network prefix(es) to be assigned 87 to it by the home agent. In this case, the mobile client MAY set the 88 prefix length field of such extensions to zero or to a length of its 89 choice as a hint to the home agent. According to this specification, 90 mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to zero 91 MAY be included in a registration request message either during 92 initial registration or during a subsequent registration. 94 When a mobile client receives a registration reply it MUST process it 95 as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base]. If 96 one or more network acknowledgement extension are included with the 97 Code field set to "Success" the mobile client SHOULD treat the 98 prefixes in the corresponding prefix fields as allocated prefixes and 99 create the appropriate bindings as defined in 100 [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base]. 102 If in response to a registration request with a mobile network 103 request extension with the prefix field set to zero, a mobile client 104 receives a registration reply with a Code field set to 70 "poorly 105 formed request", it may use it as a hint that the home agent does not 106 support dynamic prefix allocation. 108 [Ed. Note: alternatively [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] should define 109 an appropriate Code in the Mobile Network Acknowledgment extension 110 e.g., "Bad Prefix" 112 3.2. Home Agent Considerations 114 A home agent receiving a mobile network request extension with the 115 prefix field set to zero MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement 116 extension [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] with the prefix field set to 117 the prefix allocated to the mobile client. The length of that prefix 118 is at the discretion of the home agent. The home agent MAY take into 119 account the prefix length hint if one is included in the mobile 120 network request extension. Once the home agent allocates a prefix it 121 MUST maintain the prefix registration table as defined in 123 [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base]. Alternatively the home agent MAY 124 return a mobile network acknowledgement extension with the Code field 125 set to one of the negative codes defined in 126 [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base]. 128 Dynamic mobile prefix allocation as defined in this specification MAY 129 be combined with dynamic home address allocation as defined in MIPv4 130 [RFC3344]. In other words the home address field of the registration 131 request message MAY be set to zero while the message also includes 132 one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field 133 also set to zero. 135 Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain the prefix 136 registration table as defined in [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base]. 138 For dynamic prefix allocation the mobile client's home address MAY be 139 used to identify the client if it is not set to zero. If the home 140 Otherwise, as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and NAI [RFC2794], the NAI 141 [RFC2794] extension needs to be included in the registration request, 142 in which case the same extension SHOULD be used to identify the 143 mobile client for prefix allocation purposes. 145 4. Security Considerations 147 This specification operates in the security constraints and 148 requirements of MIPv4 [RFC3344], NAI [RFC2794] and 149 [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base]. 151 Home agent implementations SHOULD take steps to prevent address 152 exhaustion attacks. One way to limit the effectiveness of such an 153 attack is to limit the number and size of prefixes any one mobile 154 router can be allocated. 156 5. IANA Considerations 158 This document has no actions for IANA 160 6. Normative References 162 [I-D.ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base] 163 Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu, 164 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4", 165 draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-06 (work in progress), 166 October 2007. 168 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 169 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 171 [RFC2794] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access 172 Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000. 174 [RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, 175 August 2002. 177 Authors' Addresses 179 George Tsirtsis 180 Qualcomm 182 Phone: +908-443-8174 183 Email: tsirtsis@qualcomm.com 185 Vincent Park 186 Qualcomm 188 Phone: +908-947-7084 189 Email: vpark@qualcomm.com 191 Vidya Narayana 192 Qualcomm 194 Phone: +858-845-2483 195 Email: vidyan@qualcomm.com 197 Kent Leung 198 Cisco 200 Phone: +408-526-5030 201 Email: kleung@cisco.com 203 Full Copyright Statement 205 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 207 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 208 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 209 retain all their rights. 211 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 212 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 213 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 214 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 215 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 216 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 217 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 219 Intellectual Property 221 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 222 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 223 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 224 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 225 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 226 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 227 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 228 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 230 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 231 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 232 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 233 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 234 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 235 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 237 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 238 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 239 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 240 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 241 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 243 Acknowledgment 245 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 246 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).