idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits64545/draft-krishnan-netlmm-pmip-sel-00.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 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 186. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 197. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 204. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 210. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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.) 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 (June 7, 2007) is 5455 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) == Missing Reference: 'ICMPv6' is mentioned on line 117, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2461 (Obsoleted by RFC 4861) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Krishnan 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Standards Track June 7, 2007 5 Expires: December 9, 2007 7 Client Initiated Selection of Proxy Mobility 8 draft-krishnan-netlmm-pmip-sel-00 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 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 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2007. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 39 Abstract 41 Proxy MobileIPv6 describes a protocol solution for network based 42 mobility management that relies on Mobile IPv6 signaling and reuse of 43 home agent functionality. This document describes a mechanism by 44 which a mobile node in a PMIPv6 network can signal to the network 45 whether it would like to make use of the Proxy Mobility service. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 3. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 4. Changes to Router Solicitation Message Format . . . . . . . . 6 53 5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 54 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 56 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 57 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 59 1. Requirements notation 61 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 62 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 63 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 65 2. Introduction 67 Proxy MobileIPv6 [PMIPv6] describes a protocol solution for network 68 based mobility management that relies on Mobile IPv6 signaling and 69 reuse of home agent functionality. A proxy mobility agent in the 70 network which manages the mobility for a mobile node is the reason 71 for referring to this protocol as Proxy Mobile IPv6. This protocol 72 is targeted mainly towards mobile nodes that are incapable or 73 unwilling to do their own mobility signaling. If a mobile node that 74 wishes to do its own mobility signaling enters a PMIPv6 network it 75 cannot do so since the PMIP domain makes the MN believe that it is in 76 fact in its home network. This document describes a mechanism by 77 which a mobile node in a PMIPv6 network can signal to the PMIPv6 78 network whether it would like to make use of the Proxy Mobility 79 service or not. 81 3. Mechanism 83 According to [PMIPv6] the mobile node uses the Router Advertisements 84 from the Access Router (which is the proxy mobility agent) to 85 autoconfigure its address on the new link. The PMA receives a Router 86 Solicitation from the MN and responds with a Router Advertisement 87 containing the MN's home prefix. The proposed mechanism uses this 88 Router Solicitation to signal to the PMA as to whether it requests 89 the Proxy Mobility Service or not. For this purpose, this document 90 creates a new flag bit in the IPv6 Router Solicitation called the C 91 bit. A mobile node that utilises this mechanism and wants to perform 92 its own signaling, MUST set the C bit to one. The PMA that receives 93 it SHOULD respond with a Router Advertisement containing a 94 topologically correct prefix for the link (i.e. Not the home 95 prefix). 97 4. Changes to Router Solicitation Message Format 99 This document modifies the format of the Router Solicitation Message 100 specified in [RFC2461] to look like the following 102 0 1 2 3 103 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 1 104 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 105 | Type | Code | Checksum | 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 |C| Reserved | 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 | Options ... 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 111 ICMP Fields: 113 Type 133 115 Code 0 117 Checksum The ICMP checksum. See [ICMPv6]. 119 C If this bit is set, it means that the sending MN 120 would like to perform its own signaling. 122 Reserved This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to 123 zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the 124 receiver. 126 Figure 1: Router Solicitation Format 128 5. Backward Compatibility 130 MNs which are not aware of this specification will not set the C bit 131 and hence the PMA would provide them with proxy mobility service. 132 PMAs not aware of this bit when a client sets the C bit to 1 will 133 ignore it as specified in [RFC2461] 135 6. Security Considerations 137 The mechanism described in this document signals to the network 138 infrastructure that the sending MN is capable of doing its own 139 mobility signaling and does not wish to avail of the proxy mobility 140 service. If a node is incapable of doing so, an on-link attacker can 141 send a spoofed router solicitation and deny proxy mobility service to 142 the node. The usage of SEND [RFC3971] would prevent this from 143 happening. 145 7. Normative References 147 [PMIPv6] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 148 draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 (work in progress), 149 March 2007. 151 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 152 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 154 [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor 155 Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, 156 December 1998. 158 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure 159 Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. 161 Author's Address 163 Suresh Krishnan 164 Ericsson 165 8400 Decarie Blvd. 166 Town of Mount Royal, QC 167 Canada 169 Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871 170 Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com 172 Full Copyright Statement 174 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 176 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 177 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 178 retain all their rights. 180 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 181 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 182 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 183 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 184 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 185 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 186 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 188 Intellectual Property 190 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 191 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 192 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 193 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 194 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 195 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 196 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 197 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 199 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 200 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 201 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 202 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 203 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 204 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 206 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 207 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 208 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 209 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 210 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 212 Acknowledgment 214 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 215 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).