idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roamops-mobileip-01.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-19) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 5 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 66 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 63 instances of weird spacing in the document. Is it really formatted ragged-right, rather than justified? ** There are 101 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 13 has weird spacing: '...), its areas...' == Line 14 has weird spacing: '... its worki...' == Line 19 has weird spacing: '...afts as refer...' == Line 22 has weird spacing: '... To learn...' == Line 24 has weird spacing: '...ctories on ...' == (58 more instances...) == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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 (13 March 1998) is 9534 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) == Unused Reference: '1' is defined on line 180, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 188, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 191, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 194, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2194 (ref. '1') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2138 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 2865) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2139 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 2866) == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-radius-ext-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-radius-ext (ref. '5') == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-roamops-roamreq-07 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-roamops-roamreq (ref. '6') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2002 (ref. '7') (Obsoleted by RFC 3220) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-roamops-nai-10 Summary: 18 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 15 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ROAMOPS Working Group Bernard Aboba 3 INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft 4 Category: Standards Track 5 6 13 March 1998 8 Support for Mobile IP in Roaming 10 1. Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working docu- 13 ments of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and 14 its working groups. Note that other groups MAY also distribute work- 15 ing documents as Internet-Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 18 and MAY be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 19 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference mate- 20 rial or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 23 ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 24 Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net 25 (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim). 27 The distribution of this memo is unlimited. It is filed as , and expires September 1, 1998. Please 29 send comments to the authors. 31 2. Abstract 33 This document describes the issues involved in supporting Mobile IP in 34 roaming. 36 3. Introduction 38 As described in [6], support for Mobile IP is a requirement for a 39 roaming standard. RFC 2002 [7] describes the framework for Mobile IP, 40 while RFC 2290 [8] describes how a mobile node and a peer negotiate 41 the appropriate use of Mobile IP over a PPP link, through use of the 42 IPCP IP Address and Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Options. 44 3.1. Overview 46 The steps involved in negotiating mobile access to the Internet while 47 roaming between ISPs are as follows: 49 1. The mobile node dials into a local ISP NAS using PPP, and authenti- 50 cates via LCP, identifying itself via the Network Access Identifier 51 (NAI), described in [9]. The NAI identifies the home ISP of the mobile 52 node, providing the local ISP with the information necessary to con- 53 tact the home authentication server. 55 2. The NAS then sends a RADIUS Access-Request and receives a RADIUS 56 Access-Reply. Based on the Access-Reply, the NAS will grant access to 57 the Internet to the mobile node, or will terminate the conversation. 58 Note that since the RADIUS conversation takes place in LCP, while 59 mobile IP configuration takes place in IPCP, an Access-Accept if sent 60 must include the authorization information required to assist the NAS 61 in negotiating use of Mobile IP with the mobile node. 63 3.The mobile node will indicate its preference for a foreign care-of- 64 address or a co-located care of address via use of the IP Address and 65 Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Options in IPCP, as described in [8]. If a 66 co-located care-of-address is preferred, this will typically be indi- 67 cated by setting the IP Address option to zero, and the Mobile-IPv4 68 Configuration option to the Home Address. If a foreign agent care-of- 69 address is preferred, this will typically be indicated by sending only 70 a Mobile-IPv4 Configuration option with the Home Address. 72 4. The NAS will respond to the mobile node's Configure-Request as 73 described in [8]. If the NAS is not Mobile-IP capable, then it will 74 respond with a Configure-Reject. If the mobile node has requested a 75 co-located care-of-address, and the NAS can comply, it will typically 76 reply with a Configure-NAK including an IP Address Option set to the 77 co-located care-of-address or home address, depending on whether the 78 mobile node is attached via a foreign link or home link. If the NAS 79 only supports a foreign agent care-of-address, it will typically reply 80 with a Configure-NAK including an IP Address Option set to zero. If 81 the mobile node has requested a foreign agent care-of-address, and the 82 NAS is Mobile-IP capable, then the NAS MUST reply with a Mobile-IPv4 83 Configuration Option set to the Home Address indicated by the mobile 84 node. As noted in [8], the NAS need not know the mobile node's Home 85 Address beforehand in order to decide how to reply. This information 86 is not useful because if the Home Address expected by the NAS did not 87 match that provided by the mobile node, there would be no way to cor- 88 rect the problem, since as described in [8] a Configure-NAK is unde- 89 fined for the Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option. 91 5. The IPCP negotiation concludes and the mobile node now has access 92 to the Internet. 94 6. The NAS sends a RADIUS Accounting Start packet to the RADIUS 95 accounting server. 97 7. The NAS, acting as a Foreign Agent, sends an agent advertisement on 98 the PPP link. 100 8. The mobile node sends a Registration Request and receives a Reply. 101 As noted in [8], the mobile node must receive an agent advertisement 102 before registering on a foreign link since even if the mobile node is 103 using a colocated care-of-address, the NAS acting as a foreign agent 104 may wish to enforce a policy requiring registration. 106 4. Use of RADIUS 108 In order to carry out the IPCP negotiation described above, the NAS 109 requires the following information: 111 1. Whether the mobile node is authorized to do mobile IP. This is 112 indicated by the Mobile-IP-Configuration Attribute defined below. 113 Since the mobile node may not always wish to do mobile IP, Mobile IP 114 authorization should not be interpreted as requiring mobile IP. Simi- 115 larly, the mobile node may not always contact an ISP that is Mobile-IP 116 capable, and as a result, while a home server may include Mobile-IP- 117 Configuration attribute in the Access-Accept, this attribute may be 118 stripped by a local ISP proxy. 120 2. Whether a co-located care-of-address is available for assignment to 121 the mobile node if requested. This is indicated by the inclusion or 122 absence of a Framed-IP-Address attribute in the Access-Accept. When a 123 Mobile-IP-Configuration attribute is present, the absence of a Framed- 124 IP-Address attribute should be interpetted as indicating that a co- 125 located care-of-address MUST NOT be assigned. If a Framed-IP-Address 126 attribute is included along with a Mobile-IP-Configuration attribute, 127 then a co-located care-of-address MAY be assigned. As described in 128 [2], a co-located care-of-address may assigned statically or dynami- 129 cally. 131 4.1. Mobile-IP-Configuration attribute definition 133 Description 135 This Attribute indicates whether a user is authorized to do Mobile 136 IP. It MAY be included in Access-Accept, or Accounting-Request 137 packets. 139 A summary of the Mobile-IP-Configuration Attribute format is shown 140 below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. 142 0 1 2 3 143 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 2 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 | Type | Length | Address 146 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 147 | Address (cont) | 148 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 Type 152 ? for Mobile-IP-Configuration 154 Length 156 6 158 Address 159 The Address field is four octets, and encodes the Mobile Node's 160 Home Address. 162 Discussion 164 When included in an Access-Accept, the Address field MUST contain 165 the value 0xFFFFFFFF, indicating that Mobile-IP is authorized. 166 Since the absence of Mobile IP authorization is indicated by omis- 167 sion of the attribute, no value is required to signal lack of 168 authorization. 170 When included in an Accounting-Request, the Address field is set to 171 the Home Address supplied by the mobile node. 173 5. Acknowledgements 175 Thanks to Jim Solomon of Motorola and Pat Calhoun of Sun Microsystems 176 for useful discussions of this problem space. 178 6. References 180 [1] B. Aboba, J. Lu, J. Alsop, J. Ding, W. Wang. "Review of Roaming 181 Implementations." RFC 2194, Microsoft, Aimnet, i-Pass Alliance, Asi- 182 ainfo, Merit, September 1997. 184 [2] C. Rigney, A. Rubens, W. Simpson, S. Willens. "Remote Authenti- 185 cation Dial In User Service (RADIUS)." RFC 2138, Livingston, Merit, 186 Daydreamer, April 1997. 188 [3] C. Rigney. "RADIUS Accounting." RFC 2139, Livingston, April 189 1997. 191 [4] S. Bradner. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 192 Levels." RFC 2119, Harvard University, March, 1997. 194 [5] C. Rigney, W. Willats. "RADIUS Extensions." Internet draft (work 195 in progress), draft-ietf-radius-ext-01.txt, Livingston, December 1997. 197 [6] B. Aboba, G. Zorn. "Roaming Requirements," Internet draft (work 198 in progress), draft-ietf-roamops-roamreq-07.txt, Microsoft, March 199 1998. 201 [7] C. Perkins. "IP Mobility Support." RFC 2002, IBM October 1996. 203 [8] J. Solomon, S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP 204 IPCP." RFC 2290, Motorola, FTP Software, February 1998. 206 [9] B. Aboba, M. A. Beadles. "The Network Access Identifier." Inter- 207 net draft (work in progress), draft-ietf-roamops-nai-10.txt, 208 Microsoft, CompuServe Network Services, March 1998. 210 7. Authors' Addresses 212 Bernard Aboba 213 Microsoft Corporation 214 One Microsoft Way 215 Redmond, WA 98052 217 Phone: 425-936-6605 218 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com