idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-04.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 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 31, 2011) is 4774 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: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 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: October 2, 2011 Qualcomm 6 K. Leung 7 Cisco 8 March 31, 2011 10 Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4 11 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-04.txt 13 Abstract 15 The base NEMOv4 specification defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 for 16 mobile networks. This specification defines a dynamic prefix 17 allocation mechanism. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 2, 2011. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 3.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 1. Requirements notation 65 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 66 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 67 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 69 2. Introduction 71 The base NEMOv4 specification [RFC5177] defines extensions to Mobile 72 IPv4 [RFC3344] for mobile networks. This specification adds support 73 for dynamic allocation of mobile prefixes by the home agent. 75 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation 77 The following extension is defined according to this specification. 79 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations 81 [RFC5177] defines that the prefix field of the mobile network request 82 extension can not be set to zero. This mechanism works only in 83 combination with the explicit mode of operation defined in [RFC5177]. 85 According to this specification, a mobile client MAY include one or 86 more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to 87 zero. Such mobile network request extensions indicate that the 88 mobile client requests mobile network prefix(es) to be assigned to it 89 by the home agent. In this case, the mobile client MAY set the 90 prefix length field of such extensions to zero or to a length of its 91 choice as a hint to the home agent. According to this specification, 92 mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to zero 93 MAY be included in a registration request message either during 94 initial registration or during a subsequent registration. 96 When a mobile client receives a registration reply it MUST process it 97 as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] and [RFC5177]. If one or more network 98 acknowledgement extension are included with the Code field set to 99 "Success" the mobile client SHOULD treat the prefixes in the 100 corresponding prefix fields as allocated prefixes and create the 101 appropriate bindings as defined in [RFC5177]. 103 If in response to a registration request with a mobile network 104 request extension with the prefix field set to zero, a mobile client 105 receives a registration reply with a network acknowledgement 106 extensiona including Code field set to 1 "invalid prefix", it may use 107 it as a hint that the home agent does not support dynamic prefix 108 allocation. 110 3.2. Home Agent Considerations 112 A home agent receiving a mobile network request extension with the 113 prefix field set to zero MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement 114 extension [RFC5177] with the prefix field set to the prefix allocated 115 to the mobile client. The length of that prefix is at the discretion 116 of the home agent. The home agent MAY take into account the prefix 117 length hint if one is included in the mobile network request 118 extension. Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain 119 the prefix registration table as defined in [RFC5177]. Alternatively 120 the home agent MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement extension 121 with the Code field set to one of the negative codes defined in 122 [RFC5177]. 124 Dynamic mobile prefix allocation as defined in this specification MAY 125 be combined with dynamic home address allocation as defined in 126 [RFC5177]. In other words the home address field of the registration 127 request message MAY be set to zero while the message also includes 128 one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field 129 also set to zero. 131 Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain the prefix 132 registration table as defined in [RFC5177]. The lifetime of the 133 allocated prefix will be equal to the lifetime of the binding cache 134 entry 136 For dynamic prefix allocation the mobile client's home address MAY be 137 used to identify the client if it is not set to zero. Otherwise, as 138 defined in the NAI extension [RFC2794] of MIPv4 [RFC2794], the NAI 139 extension needs to be included in the registration request, in which 140 case the same extension SHOULD be used to identify the mobile client 141 for prefix allocation purposes. 143 4. Security Considerations 145 This specification operates in the security constraints and 146 requirements of MIPv4 [RFC3344], NAI [RFC2794] and [RFC5177]. 148 Home agent implementations SHOULD take steps to prevent address 149 exhaustion attacks. One way to limit the effectiveness of such an 150 attack is to limit the number and size of prefixes any one mobile 151 router can be allocated. 153 5. IANA Considerations 155 This document has no actions for IANA 157 6. Normative References 159 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 160 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 162 [RFC2794] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access 163 Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000. 165 [RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, 166 August 2002. 168 [RFC5177] Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu, 169 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4", 170 RFC 5177, April 2008. 172 Authors' Addresses 174 George Tsirtsis 175 Qualcomm 177 Email: tsirtsis@googlemail.com 179 Vincent Park 180 Qualcomm 182 Phone: +908-947-7084 183 Email: vpark@qualcomm.com 185 Vidya Narayana 186 Qualcomm 188 Phone: +858-845-2483 189 Email: vidyan@qualcomm.com 191 Kent Leung 192 Cisco 194 Phone: +408-526-5030 195 Email: kleung@cisco.com