





Network Working Group                                     V. Devarapalli
Request for Comments: 5094                               Azaire Networks
Category: Standards Track                                       A. Patel
                                                                K. Leung
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           December 2007


                   Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   There is a need for vendor-specific extensions to Mobility Header
   messages so that Mobile IPv6 vendors are able to extend the protocol
   for research or deployment purposes.  This document defines a new
   vendor-specific mobility option.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Vendor-Specific Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5











Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007


1.  Introduction

   Vendor-specific messages have traditionally allowed vendors to
   implement extensions to some protocols and distinguish themselves
   from other vendors.  These messages are clearly marked by a Vendor ID
   that identifies the vendor.  A particular vendor's implementation
   identifies the vendor extension by recognizing the Vendor ID.
   Implementations that do not recognize the Vendor ID either discard or
   skip processing the message.

   Mobile IPv6 [2] is being deployed and there is a need for vendor-
   specific extensions to Mobility Header messages so that vendors are
   able to extend the Mobile IPv6 protocol for research or deployment
   purposes.

   This document defines a new mobility option, the Vendor-Specific
   Mobility Option, which can be carried in any Mobility Header message.
   The Vendor-Specific mobility option MUST be used only with a Mobility
   Header message.  Mobility options, by definition, can be skipped if
   an implementation does not recognize the mobility option type [2].

   The messages defined in this document can also be used for NEMO [3]
   and Proxy MIPv6 [4] since these protocols also use Mobility Header
   messages.

   Vendor-specific protocol extensions can cause serious
   interoperability issues and may in addition have adverse operational
   impact, if they are not designed and used carefully.  The vendor-
   specific option described in this document is meant to support simple
   use cases where it is sufficient to include some vendor data in the
   standardized Mobile IPv6 protocol exchanges.  The vendor-specific
   option is not suitable for more complex vendor extensions that modify
   Mobile IPv6 itself.  Although these options allow vendors to
   piggyback additional data onto Mobile IPv6 message exchanges, RFC
   3775 [2] requires that unrecognized options be ignored and that the
   end systems be able to process the remaining parts of the message
   correctly.  Extensions that use the vendor-specific mobility option
   should require an indication that the option was processed, in the
   response, using the vendor-specific mobility option.

   Vendors are generally encouraged to bring their protocol extensions
   to the IETF for review and standardization.  Complex vendor
   extensions that modify Mobile IPv6 itself, will see large-scale
   deployment or involve industry consortia, or other multi-vendor
   organizations MUST be standardized in the IETF.  Past experience has
   shown that such extensions of IETF protocols are critically dependent
   on IETF review and standardization.




Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [1].

3.  Vendor-Specific Mobility Option

   The Vendor Specific Mobility Option can be included in any Mobility
   Header message and has an alignment requirement of 4n+2.  If the
   Mobility Header message includes a Binding Authorization Data option
   [2], then the Vendor Specific mobility option should appear before
   the Binding Authorization Data option.  Multiple Vendor-Specific
   mobility options MAY be present in a Mobility Header message.


      0                   1                   2                   3
      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
                                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                     |     Type      |   Length      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Vendor ID                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Sub-Type    |             Data.......
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      An 8-bit field indicating that it is a Vendor-Specific mobility
      option.


   Length

      An 8-bit field indicating the length of the option in octets
      excluding the Type and the Length fields.  All other fields are
      included.


   Vendor ID

      The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA-
      maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry [5].








Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007


   Sub-type

      An 8-bit field indicating the type of vendor-specific information
      carried in the option.  The administration of the Sub-type is done
      by the Vendor.


   Data

      Vendor-specific data that is carried in this message.

4.  Security Considerations

   The Vendor-Specific mobility messages should be protected in a manner
   similar to Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements if it carries
   information that should not be revealed on the wire or that can
   affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the correspondent
   node.  In particular, the messages containing the Vendor Specific
   mobility option MUST be integrity protected.

5.  IANA Considerations

   The Vendor-Specific mobility option, defined in Section 3, has been
   assigned the type value (19), allocated from the same space as the
   Mobility Options registry created by RFC 3775 [2].

6.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with
   whom the contents of this document were discussed first.





















Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
        IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

7.2.  Informative References

   [3]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
        "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
        January 2005.

   [4]  Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Work in Progress,
        March 2007.

   [5]  IANA Assigned Numbers Online Database, "Private Enterprise
        Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.






























Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Vijay Devarapalli
   Azaire Networks
   3121 Jay Street
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   USA

   EMail: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com


   Alpesh Patel
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   EMail: alpesh@cisco.com


   Kent Leung
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   EMail: kleung@cisco.com
























Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5094              MIPv6 Vendor Specific Option         December 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Devarapalli, et al.         Standards Track                     [Page 7]

