idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mobileip-mn-nai-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 8 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 63: '...de NAI extension MAY have the Home Add...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 70: '...ld of the option MUST not be zero. Ho...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 81: '...Request, the Home Address field MAY be...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 82: '... Node NAI extension MUST appear in the...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 103: '... agent MUST use the NAI instead in i...' (7 more instances...) -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC2290, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: The "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration" option to IPCP has been specified in RFC 2290 [10] for proper interaction between a mobile node and a peer, through which the mobile node connects to the network using PPP. According to that specification the Mobile Node's Home Address field of the option MUST not be zero. However, in the context of this draft which allows a mobile node to be identified by its NAI and to obtain an address after the PPP phase of connection establishment, the Home Address field is allowed to be zero while maintaining all other aspects of RFC2290. Interpretation of various scenarios from RFC 2290 is given in section 4. -- 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. 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 2486 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 4282) == Outdated reference: A later version (-28) exists of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-calhoun-diameter-07 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '3' == Outdated reference: A later version (-24) exists of draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-07 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2344 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 3024) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2356 (ref. '6') == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-08 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '7' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2002 (ref. '8') (Obsoleted by RFC 3220) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2138 (ref. '9') (Obsoleted by RFC 2865) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1971 (ref. '11') (Obsoleted by RFC 2462) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Mobile IP Working Group Pat R. Calhoun 2 INTERNET DRAFT Sun Microsystems Laboratories 3 25 September 1999 Charles E. Perkins 4 Nokia Research Center 6 Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension 7 draft-ietf-mobileip-mn-nai-04.txt 9 Status of This Memo 11 This document is a submission by the mobile-ip Working Group of the 12 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments should be submitted 13 to the MOBILE-IP@STANDARDS.NORTELNETWORKS.COM mailing list. 15 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 17 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 18 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working 19 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 20 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 21 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at 25 any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at: 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 Abstract 35 AAA servers, such as RADIUS and DIAMETER, are in use within the 36 Internet today to provide authentication and authorization services 37 for dial-up computers. Such services are likely to be equally 38 valuable for mobile nodes using Mobile IP when the nodes are 39 attempting to connect to foreign domains with AAA servers. AAA 40 servers today identify clients by using the Network Access Identifier 41 (NAI). Our proposal defines a way for the mobile node to identify 42 itself, by including the NAI along with the Mobile IP Registration 43 Request. This draft also updates RFC2290 which specifies the 44 Mobile-IPv4 Configuration option for IPCP, by allowing the Mobile 45 Node's Home Address field of this option to be zero. 47 1. Introduction 49 AAA servers, such as RADIUS [9] and DIAMETER [3], are in use within 50 the Internet today to provide authentication and authorization 51 services for dial-up computers. Such services are likely to be 52 equally valuable for mobile nodes using Mobile IP when the nodes 53 are attempting to connect to foreign domains with AAA servers. AAA 54 servers today identify clients by using the Network Access Identifier 55 (NAI) [1]. This document specifies the Mobile Node NAI extension to 56 the Mobile IP Registration Request [8] message from the mobile node. 58 Since the NAI is typically used to uniquely identify the mobile 59 node, the mobile node's home address is not always necessary to 60 provide that function. Thus, it is possible for a mobile node to 61 authenticate itself, and be authorized for connection to the foreign 62 domain, without even having a home address. A message containing 63 the Mobile Node NAI extension MAY have the Home Address field in the 64 Registration Request set to zero (0) to request that one be assigned. 66 The "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration" option to IPCP has been specified 67 in RFC 2290 [10] for proper interaction between a mobile node and a 68 peer, through which the mobile node connects to the network using 69 PPP. According to that specification the Mobile Node's Home Address 70 field of the option MUST not be zero. However, in the context of 71 this draft which allows a mobile node to be identified by its NAI and 72 to obtain an address after the PPP phase of connection establishment, 73 the Home Address field is allowed to be zero while maintaining all 74 other aspects of RFC2290. Interpretation of various scenarios from 75 RFC 2290 is given in section 4. 77 2. Mobile Node NAI Extension 79 The Mobile Node NAI extension, shown in figure 1, contains the user 80 and/or host name following the format defined in [1]. When it is 81 present in the Registration Request, the Home Address field MAY be 82 set to zero (0). The Mobile Node NAI extension MUST appear in the 83 Registration Request before both the Mobile-Home Authentication 84 extension and Mobile-Foreign Authentication extension, if present. 86 Type 131 (skippable) [8] 88 Length The length in bytes of the MN-NAI field 90 MN-NAI A string in the NAI format defined in [1]. 92 0 1 2 3 93 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 94 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 95 | Type | Length | MN-NAI ... 96 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 98 Figure 1: The Mobile Node NAI Extension 100 3. Foreign Agent Considerations 102 If Home Address is zero in the Registration Request, the foreign 103 agent MUST use the NAI instead in its pending registration request 104 records, along with the Identification field as usual. If the 105 foreign agent cannot manage pending registration request records in 106 this way, it MUST return a Registration Reply with Code indicating 107 NONZERO_HOMEADDR_REQD (see section 5). 109 If the mobile node includes the Mobile Node NAI extension in its 110 Registration Request, then the Registration Reply from the home 111 agent MUST include the Mobile Node NAI extension. If not, the 112 foreign agent SHOULD send the Registration Reply to the mobile node, 113 changing the Code to the value MISSING_NAI (see section 5). The 114 Registration Reply MUST include a nonzero Home Agent address and 115 mobile node's Home Address. If not, the foreign agent SHOULD send 116 the Registration Reply to the mobile node, changing the Code to the 117 value MISSING_HOME_AGENT or MISSING_HOMEADDR, respectively (see 118 section 5). 120 4. Interactions with Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option to IPCP 122 In the Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option to IPCP [10], the Mobile 123 Node's Home Address field may be zero. In this section, we specify 124 the action to be taken in that case, when the mobile node is using 125 the Mobile Node NAI extension in the Mobile IP Registration Request. 126 Whether or not the IP Address Configuration Option contains a nonzero 127 IP address, the mobile node will subsequently attempt to obtain a 128 home address from the Mobile IP Registration Reply. 130 If the IP Address Configuration Option to IPCP has IP address equal 131 to zero, the PPP peer is expected to allocate and assign a co-located 132 care-of address to the Mobile Node. If, on the other hand, the IP 133 Address Configuration Option to IPCP has a nonzero IP address, the 134 PPP peer is expected to assign that address to the Mobile Node as its 135 co-located care-of address. 137 5. Error Values 139 Each entry in the following table contains the name of Code [8] to 140 be returned in a Registration Reply, the value for the Code, and the 141 section in which the error is first mentioned in this specification. 143 Error Name Value Section of Document 144 ---------------------- ----- ------------------- 145 NONZERO_HOMEADDR_REQD 96 3 146 MISSING_NAI 97 3 147 MISSING_HOME_AGENT 98 3 148 MISSING_HOMEADDR 99 3 150 6. IANA Considerations 152 The number for the Mobile Node NAI extension is taken from the 153 numbering space defined for Mobile IP registration extensions defined 154 in RFC 2002 [8] as extended in RFC 2356 [6]. The numbering for 155 the extension also SHOULD NOT conflict with values specified in 156 the Internet Draft for Route Optimization [7]. The Code values 157 specified for errors, listed in section 5, MUST NOT conflict with any 158 other code values listed in RFC 2002, RFC 2344 [5], or RFC 2356 [6]. 159 They are to be taken from the space of error values conventionally 160 associated with rejection by the foreign agent (i.e., 64-127). 162 7. Security Considerations 164 Mobile IP registration messages are authenticated, and the 165 authentication verified by the recipient. This proposal does not 166 prohibit the mobile node from sending its NAI in the clear over the 167 network, but that is not expected to be a security issue. 169 8. IPv6 Considerations 171 Supporting NAI-based registrations for Mobile IPv6 [4] is outside 172 the scope of this document. This section contains some ideas how 173 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [11] and DHCPv6 [2] might be 174 extended to support NAI-based Mobile IPv6 registrations. 176 For mobile nodes using IPv6, there are no commonly deployed 177 mechanisms by which a mobile node may present its credentials, such 178 as exist today with IPv4. Nevertheless, a mobile node using IPv6 179 mobility may wish to specify the domain in which their credentials 180 may be checked, by using a NAI just as this specification proposes 181 for IPv4. In the case of IPv6, however, there is no foreign agent 182 in place to manage the connectivity of the mobile node, and thus to 183 manage the verification of the credentials offered by the mobile 184 node. To identify the HDAF (see appendix A) that has the expected 185 relationship with the mobile node, the NAI would have to be forwarded 186 to a local AAA by the local agent involved with configuring the 187 care-of address of the mobile node. 189 This agent can either be a router sending out Router 190 Advertisements [11], or a DHCPv6 server. In the former case, 191 the router could signal its ability to handle the NAI by attaching 192 some yet to be defined option to the Router Advertisement. In the 193 latter case, for managed links, the mobile node could include a 194 yet to be defined NAI extension in its DHCP Solicitation message. 195 Such an NAI extension and appropriate authentication would also 196 be required on the subsequent DHCP Request sent by the mobile 197 node to the DHCP Server selected on the basis of received DHCP 198 Advertisements. Once a care-of address on the foreign network has 199 been obtained, the mobile node can use regular MIPv6 [4]. 201 9. Acknowledgements 203 The authors would like to thank Gabriel Montenegro and Vipul 204 Gupta for their useful discussions. Thanks to Basaravaj Patil and 205 Pete McCann for text describing actions to be taken when the home 206 address is zero but the mobile node wishes to use the Mobile-IPv4 207 Configuration Option to IPCP defined in RFC 2290. 209 References 211 [1] B. Aboba and M. Beadles. RFC 2486: The Network Access 212 Identifier, January 1999. Status: PROPOSED STANDARD. 214 [2] J. Bound and C. Perkins. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 215 for IPv6. draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-14.txt, February 1999. (work 216 in progress). 218 [3] P. Calhoun and A. Rubens. DIAMETER Base Protocol. 219 draft-calhoun-diameter-07.txt, November 1998. (work in 220 progress). 222 [4] D. Johnson and C. Perkins. Mobility Support in IPv6. 223 draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-07.txt, November 1998. (work in 224 progress). 226 [5] G. Montenegro. Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP. RFC 2344, May 227 1998. 229 [6] G. Montenegro and V. Gupta. Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for 230 Mobile IP. RFC 2356, June 1998. 232 [7] Charles E. Perkins and David B. Johnson. Route Optimization in 233 Mobile-IP. draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-08.txt, February 1999. 234 (work in progress). 236 [8] C. Perkins, Editor. IP Mobility Support. RFC 2002, October 237 1996. 239 [9] C. Rigney, A. Rubens, W. Simpson, and S. Willens. Remote 240 Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS). RFC 2138, April 241 1997. 243 [10] J. Solomon and S. Glass. Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for 244 PPP IPCP. RFC 2290, February 1998. 246 [11] S. Thomson and T. Narten. RFC 2462: IPv6 stateless address 247 autoconfiguration, December 1998. Obsoletes RFC1971. Status: 248 DRAFT STANDARD. 250 A. Home Domain Allocation Function (HDAF) 252 This appendix introduces a new function named the Home Domain 253 Allocation Function (HDAF) that can dynamically assign a Home Address 254 to the mobile node. 256 Figure 2 illustrates the Home HDAF, which receives messages from 257 foreign agents (e.g., FA) and assigns a Home Address within the Home 258 Domain. The HDAF does not perform any Mobile IP processing on the 259 Registration Request, but simply forwards the request to a Home Agent 260 (HA) within the network that is able to handle the request. 262 +------+ 263 | | 264 +---+ HA-1 | 265 +------+ +------+ +------+ | | | 266 | | | | | | | +------+ 267 | MN |-------| FA |-------| HDAF +---+ ... 268 | | | | | | | +------+ 269 +------+ +------+ +------+ | | | 270 +---+ HA-n | 271 | | 272 +------+ 274 Figure 2: Home Domain Allocator Function (HDAF) 276 Upon receipt of the Registration Request from the mobile node (MN), 277 FA extracts the NAI and finds the domain name associated with it. 278 FA then finds the HDAF that handles requests for the mobile node's 279 domain. The discovery protocol is outside of the scope of this 280 specification. As an example, however, FA might delegate the duty of 281 finding a HDAF to a local AAA server. The local AAA server may also 282 assist FA in the process of verifying the credentials of the mobile 283 node, using protocols not specified in this document. 285 Addresses 287 The working group can be contacted via the current chairs: 289 Basavaraj Patil Phil Roberts 290 Nortel Networks Inc. Motorola 291 2201 Lakeside Blvd. 1501 West Shure Drive 292 Richardson, TX. 75082-4399 Arlington Heights, IL 60004 293 USA USA 295 Phone: +1 972-684-1489 Phone: +1 847-632-3148 296 EMail: bpatil@nortelnetworks.com EMail: QA3445@email.mot.com 298 Questions about this memo can be directed to: 300 Charles E. Perkins Pat R. Calhoun 301 Nokia Research Center Sun Microsystems Laboratories 302 313 Fairchild Drive 15 Network Circle 303 Mountain View, California 94043 Menlo Park, California 94025 304 USA USA 306 Phone: +1-650 625-2986 Phone: +1 650-786-7733 307 EMail: charliep@iprg.nokia.com EMail: pcalhoun@eng.sun.com 308 Fax: +1 650 691-2170 Fax: +1 650-786-6445