idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-05.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 (April 28, 2011) is 4747 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 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 30, 2011 Qualcomm 6 K. Leung 7 Cisco 8 April 28, 2011 10 Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4 11 draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-05.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 30, 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. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 62 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 1. Requirements notation 66 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 67 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 68 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 70 2. Introduction 72 The base NEMOv4 specification [RFC5177] defines extensions to Mobile 73 IPv4 [RFC5944] for mobile networks. This specification adds support 74 for dynamic allocation of mobile prefixes by the home agent. 76 3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix allocation 78 The following extension is defined according to this specification. 80 3.1. Mobile Client Considerations 82 [RFC5177] defines that the prefix field of the mobile network request 83 extension can not be set to zero. This mechanism works only in 84 combination with the explicit mode of operation defined in [RFC5177]. 86 According to this specification, a Mobile Router MAY include one or 87 more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to 88 zero. Such mobile network request extensions indicate that the 89 Mobile Router requests mobile network prefix(es) to be assigned to it 90 by the home agent. In this case, the Mobile Router MAY set the 91 prefix length field of such extensions to zero or to a length of its 92 choice as a hint to the home agent. According to this specification, 93 mobile network request extensions with the prefix field set to zero 94 MAY be included in a registration request message either during 95 initial registration or during a subsequent registration. 97 When a Mobile Router receives a registration reply it MUST process it 98 as defined in Mobile IPv4 [RFC5944] and [RFC5177]. If one or more 99 network acknowledgement extension are included with the Code field 100 set to "Success" the Mobile Router SHOULD treat the prefixes in the 101 corresponding prefix fields as allocated prefixes and create the 102 appropriate bindings as defined in [RFC5177]. 104 If in response to a registration request with a mobile network 105 request extension with the prefix field set to zero, a Mobile Router 106 receives a registration reply with a network acknowledgement 107 extension including Code field set to 1 "invalid prefix", it may use 108 it as a hint that the home agent does not support dynamic prefix 109 allocation. 111 3.2. Home Agent Considerations 113 A home agent receiving a mobile network request extension with the 114 prefix field set to zero MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement 115 extension [RFC5177] with the prefix field set to the prefix allocated 116 to the Mobile Router. The length of that prefix is at the discretion 117 of the home agent. The home agent MAY take into account the prefix 118 length hint if one is included in the mobile network request 119 extension. Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain 120 the prefix registration table as defined in [RFC5177]. Alternatively 121 the home agent MAY return a mobile network acknowledgement extension 122 with the Code field set to one of the negative codes defined in 123 [RFC5177]. 125 Dynamic mobile prefix allocation as defined in this specification MAY 126 be combined with dynamic home address allocation as defined in 127 [RFC5177]. In other words the home address field of the registration 128 request message MAY be set to zero while the message also includes 129 one or more mobile network request extensions with the prefix field 130 also set to zero. 132 Once the home agent allocates a prefix it MUST maintain the prefix 133 registration table as defined in [RFC5177]. The lifetime of the 134 allocated prefix will be equal to the lifetime of the binding cache 135 entry 137 For dynamic prefix allocation the Mobile Router's home address MAY be 138 used to identify the client if it is not set to zero. Otherwise, as 139 defined in the NAI extension [RFC2794] of Mobile IPv4 [RFC2794], the 140 NAI extension needs to be included in the registration request, in 141 which case the same extension SHOULD be used to identify the Mobile 142 Router for prefix allocation purposes. 144 4. Security Considerations 146 This specification operates in the security constraints and 147 requirements of Mobile IPv4 [RFC5944], NAI [RFC2794] and [RFC5177]. 149 Home agent implementations SHOULD take steps to prevent address 150 exhaustion attacks. One way to limit the effectiveness of such an 151 attack is to limit the number and size of prefixes any one mobile 152 router can be allocated. 154 5. IANA Considerations 156 This document has no actions for IANA 158 6. Acknowledgements 160 The authors would like to thank Pete McCann and Alexandru Petrescu 161 for their reviews and comments. 163 7. Normative References 165 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 166 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 168 [RFC2794] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access 169 Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000. 171 [RFC5177] Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu, 172 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4", 173 RFC 5177, April 2008. 175 [RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", 176 RFC 5944, November 2010. 178 Authors' Addresses 180 George Tsirtsis 181 Qualcomm 183 Email: tsirtsis@googlemail.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