idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-02.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 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 (August 29, 2008) is 5717 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 normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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: March 2, 2009 Qualcomm 6 K. Leung 7 Cisco 8 August 29, 2008 10 Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4 11 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-02.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 March 2, 2009. 38 Abstract 40 The base NEMOv4 specification defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 for 41 mobile networks. This specification defines a dynamic prefix 42 allocation mechanism. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 49 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 50 3.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 51 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 52 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 53 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 54 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 55 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 57 1. Requirements notation 59 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 60 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 61 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 63 2. Introduction 65 The base NEMOv4 specification [RFC5177] defines extensions to Mobile 66 IPv4 [RFC3344] for mobile networks. This specification adds support 67 for dynamic allocation of mobile prefixes by the home agent. 69 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation 71 The following extension is defined according to this specification. 73 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations 75 [RFC5177] defines that the prefix field of the mobile network request 76 extension can not be set to zero. This mechanism works only in 77 combination with the explicit mode of operation defined in [RFC5177]. 79 According to this specification, a mobile client MAY include one or 80 more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to 81 zero. Such mobile network request extensions indicate that the 82 mobile client requests mobile network prefix(es) to be assigned to it 83 by the home agent. In this case, the mobile client MAY set the 84 prefix length field of such extensions to zero or to a length of its 85 choice as a hint to the home agent. According to this specification, 86 mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to zero 87 MAY be included in a registration request message either during 88 initial registration or during a subsequent registration. 90 When a mobile client receives a registration reply it MUST process it 91 as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and [RFC5177]. If one or more network 92 acknowledgement extension are included with the Code field set to 93 "Success" the mobile client SHOULD treat the prefixes in the 94 corresponding prefix fields as allocated prefixes and create the 95 appropriate bindings as defined in [RFC5177]. 97 If in response to a registration request with a mobile network 98 request extension with the prefix field set to zero, a mobile client 99 receives a registration reply with a network acknowledgement 100 extensiona including Code field set to 1 "invalid prefix", it may use 101 it as a hint that the home agent does not support dynamic prefix 102 allocation. 104 3.2. Home Agent Considerations 106 A home agent receiving a mobile network request extension with the 107 prefix field set to zero MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement 108 extension [RFC5177] with the prefix field set to the prefix allocated 109 to the mobile client. The length of that prefix is at the discretion 110 of the home agent. The home agent MAY take into account the prefix 111 length hint if one is included in the mobile network request 112 extension. Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain 113 the prefix registration table as defined in [RFC5177]. Alternatively 114 the home agent MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement extension 115 with the Code field set to one of the negative codes defined in 116 [RFC5177]. 118 Dynamic mobile prefix allocation as defined in this specification MAY 119 be combined with dynamic home address allocation as defined in 120 [RFC5177]. In other words the home address field of the registration 121 request message MAY be set to zero while the message also includes 122 one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field 123 also set to zero. 125 Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain the prefix 126 registration table as defined in [RFC5177]. The lifetime of the 127 allocated prefix will be equal to the lifetime of the binding cache 128 entry 130 For dynamic prefix allocation the mobile client's home address MAY be 131 used to identify the client if it is not set to zero. Otherwise, as 132 defined in the NAI extension [RFC2794] of MIPv4 [RFC2794], the NAI 133 extension needs to be included in the registration request, in which 134 case the same extension SHOULD be used to identify the mobile client 135 for prefix allocation purposes. 137 4. Security Considerations 139 This specification operates in the security constraints and 140 requirements of MIPv4 [RFC3344], NAI [RFC2794] and [RFC5177]. 142 Home agent implementations SHOULD take steps to prevent address 143 exhaustion attacks. One way to limit the effectiveness of such an 144 attack is to limit the number and size of prefixes any one mobile 145 router can be allocated. 147 5. IANA Considerations 149 This document has no actions for IANA 151 6. Normative References 153 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 154 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 156 [RFC2794] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access 157 Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000. 159 [RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, 160 August 2002. 162 [RFC5177] Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu, 163 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4", 164 RFC 5177, April 2008. 166 Authors' Addresses 168 George Tsirtsis 169 Qualcomm 171 Email: tsirtsis@googlemail.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 (2008). 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.