| TOC |
|
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2009.
This specification provides IPv6 extensions to the Mobile IPv4 protocol. The extensions allow a dual stack node to use IPv4 and IPv6 home addresses as well as to move between IPv4 and dual stack network infrastructures.
1.
Requirements Notation
2.
Introduction
2.1.
Goals
2.2.
Non-Goals
2.3.
Implicit and Explicit Modes
3.
Extension Formats
3.1.
IPv6 Prefix Request Extension
3.2.
IPv6 Prefix Reply Extension
3.3.
IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension
4.
Mobile IP Registrations
4.1.
Registration Request
4.2.
Registration Reply
4.3.
Home Agent Considerations
4.3.1.
IPv6 Reachability
4.3.2.
Processing intercepted IPv6 Packets
4.3.3.
IPv6 Multicast Membership Control
4.4.
Foreign Agent Considerations
4.5.
Mobile Node Considerations
4.6.
IPv6 Prefixes
4.6.1.
Dynamic IPv6 Prefix Delegation
4.7.
Deregistration of IPv6 Prefix
4.8.
Registration with a private CoA
5.
Security Considerations
6.
IANA Considerations
7.
Acknowledgements
8.
References
8.1.
Normative References
8.2.
Informative References
§
Authors' Addresses
§
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
| TOC |
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 [RFC2119] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).
| TOC |
Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) allows a mobile node with an IPv4 address to maintain communications while moving in an IPv4 network.
Extensions defined in this document allow a node that has IPv4 and IPv6 addresses [RFC2460] (Deering, S. and R. Hinden, “Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification,” December 1998.) to maintain communications through any of its addresses while moving in IPv4 or dual stack networks.
Essentially, this specification separates the Mobile IPv4 signaling from the IP version of the traffic it tunnels. Mobile IPv4 with the present extensions remains a signaling protocol that runs over IPv4, and yet can set-up both IPv4 and IPv6 tunnels over IPv4.
The aim is two-fold:
On one hand, Mobile IPv4 with the present extensions becomes a useful transition mechanism, allowing automated but controlled tunneling of IPv6 traffic over IPv4 tunnels. Dual stack nodes in dual stack home networks can now roam to and from legacy IPv4 networks, while IPv4 mobile nodes and networks can migrate to IPv6 without changing mobility management, and without upgrading all network nodes to IPv6 at once.
On the other hand, and more importantly, it allows dual stack mobile nodes and networks to utilize a single protocol for the movement of both IPv4 and IPv6 stacks in the network topology.
Note that features like Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] (Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” June 2004.) style route optimization will not be possible with this solution as it still relies on Mobile IPv4 signaling, which does not provide route optimization.
| TOC |
- a.
- The solution supports the registration of IPv6 home prefix(s) in addition to regular IPv4 home address registration
- b.
- The solution supports static and dynamic IPv6 prefix delegation
- c.
- The solution supports the above registrations with and without FA support
| TOC |
- a.
- The solution does not provide support for IPv6 care-of address registration
| TOC |
As defined in NEMO [RFC3963] (Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, “Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol,” January 2005.), this specification also supports two modes of operation; the implicit mode and the explicit mode.
In the implicit mode, the mobile node does not include any IPv6 prefix request extensions in the Registration Request. The home agent can use any mechanism (not defined in this document) to determine the IPv6 Prefix(es) owned by the mobile node and to set up forwarding for these prefixes. In this mode of operation all traffic to and from the IPv6 prefixes MUST be encapsulated over the IPv4 tunnel between the mobile node's IPv4 home address and the IPv4 address of the home agent, and as such it is transparent to any foreign agent in the path. This IPv4 tunnel is established by mechanisms that are out of the scope of this document on both the mobile node and home agent when operating in the implicit mode.
In the explicit mode, IPv6 bindings are signalled explicitly. The mobile node includes one or more IPv6 prefix request extensions in the Registration Request, while the home agent returns corresponding IPv6 prefix reply extensions to accept/reject the IPv6 bindings.
Additionally, in the explicit mode, the mobile node (when co-located mode of operation is used) or the foreign agent (when present) can indicate whether IPv6 traffic should be tunneled to the care-of address or the home address of the mobile node.
The rest of this specification is primarily defining the explicit mode.
| TOC |
The following extensions are defined according to this specification.
| TOC |
A new skippable extension to the Mobile IPv4 registration request message in accordance to the short extension format of [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) is defined here.
This extension contains a mobile IPv6 network prefix and its prefix length.
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 | Sub-Type | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Figure 1: IPv6 Prefix Request Extension |
Type
TBD (DSMIPv4 Extension)(skippable type to be assigned by IANA)
Length
18
Sub-Type
1 (IPv6 Prefix Request)
Prefix Length
Indicates the prefix length of the prefix included in the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix field
Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix
A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix
| TOC |
A new skippable extension to the Mobile IPv4 registration reply message in accordance to the short extension format of [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) is defined here.
This extension defines a mobile IPv6 network prefix and its prefix length, as well as a code.
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 | Sub-Type | Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Reserved | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+ Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix +
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Figure 2: IPv6 Prefix Reply Extension |
Type
TBD (DSMIPv4 Extension)(skippable type to be assigned by IANA)
Length
20
Sub-Type
2 (IPv6 Prefix Reply)
Code
A value indicating the result of the registration request with respect to the IPv6 home prefix registration. See below for currently defined Codes.
Prefix Length
Indicates the prefix length of the prefix included in the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix field
Reserved
Set to 0 by the sender, ignored by the receiver
Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix
A sixteen-byte field containing the Mobile IPv6 Network Prefix
The following values are defined for use as a Code value in the above extension
0 registration accepted, IPv6 to be tunneled to HoA
1 registration accepted, IPv6 to be tunneled to CoA
8 registration rejected, reason unspecified
9 registration rejected, administratively prohibited
Note that a registration reply that does not include an IPv6 prefix reply extension indicates that the home agent does not support IPv6 extensions and thus has ignored such extensions in the registration request.
| TOC |
A new skippable extension to the Mobile IPv4 registration request message in accordance to the short extension format of [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) is defined here.
By including this extension in a registration request the sender indicates that IPv6 traffic can be tunneled to the mobile's CoA.
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 | Sub-Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Figure 3: IPv6 Tunneling Mode Extension |
Type
TBD (DSMIPv4 Extension) (skippable type to be assigned by IANA)
Length
2
Sub-Type
3 (IPv6 Tunneling Mode)
Reserved
Set to 0 by the sender, ignored by the receiver
| TOC |
| TOC |
A mobile node MAY include one or more IPv6 prefix request extensions defined in this specification in a registration request.
A mobile node MAY include exactly one IPv6 tunneling mode extension when it uses the co-located care-of address mode of [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.).
When IPv6 prefix and/or IPv6 tunneling mode extensions are used by the mobile IP client, they MUST be placed after the registration request header and before the mobile – home authentication extension so they MUST be included in the computation of any authentication extension.
A foreign agent MAY include exactly one IPv6 tunneling mode extension, defined in this specification, in a registration request when a mobile node registers using the care-of address mode via the foreign agent.
When the IPv6 tunneling mode extension is used by a foreign agent it MUST be placed after the mobile – home authentication extensions and before the foreign – home authentication extension so they MUST be included in the computation of the foreign – home authentication extension when one exists.
| TOC |
The mechanism described in the specification depends on skippable extensions. For that reason, a registration reply that does not include an IPv6 prefix reply extension, in response to a registration request including an IPv6 Prefix Request extension, indicates that the home agent does not support IPv6 extensions and has ignored the request.
If an IPv6 prefix reply extension is included in a registration reply, then the extension indicates the success or failure of the IPv6 prefix registration. The IPv6 Prefix Reply extension does not affect in any way the code value in the registration reply header but it is superseded by it. In other words if the code field in the registration reply header is set to a reject code, then all IPv6 prefix request extensions are also rejected. If the code field in the registration reply header, however, is set to an accept code, then an IPv6 prefix reply extension with a code field set to a reject code only rejects the binding for the specific IPv6 prefix indicated in the same extension.
Note that a rejecting IPv6 prefix reply extension has the same effect as not including such an extension at all, in the sense that in both cases the mobile node and foreign agent must act as if the corresponding IPv6 prefix request extension included in the registration request was rejected. Of course, the inclusion of the IPv6 prefix reply extension allows the home agent to indicate why a given IPv6 Prefix Request extension was rejected. A detailed description of how the mobile node handles different IPv6 prefix reply extension code values and the absence of IPv6 prefix reply extensions is given in Section 4.5 (Mobile Node Considerations).
| TOC |
The dual stack home agent defined in this specification is a Mobile IPv4 home agent in that, it MUST operate as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.). In addition to that, the following mechanisma are defined in this specification.
For each IPv6 prefix request extension included in a valid registration request, a home agent that supports this specification SHOULD include a corresponding IPv6 Prefix Reply extension in the registration reply message. The home agent MUST NOT include more than one IPv6 prefix reply extension for the same prefix. For each accepted IPv6 prefix the home agent MUST decide the tunneling mode it is going to use and set the code field of the IPv6 prefix reply extension to the appropriate value. The IPv6 prefix field of each of the IPv6 prefix reply extensions included in the registration reply MUST match the IPv6 prefix field of an IPv6 prefix request extensions included in the corresponding registration request message.
When the home agent sends a successful registration reply to the mobile node, with the code field of a corresponding IPv6 prefix reply extension set to one of the "registration accepted" values, the home agent indicates that the IPv6 prefix is registered for the lifetime granted for the binding. It also indicates the tunneling mode used i.e., tunneling to home address or care-of address, based on the value of the code field used in the IPv6 prefix reply extension.
Note that since only IPv6 prefixes (and not addresses) are supported by this specification, there is no need for Duplicate Address Detection. The home agent, however, MUST check that registered prefixes are not overlapping so that all addresses under each registered prefix belong to a single mobile node at any one time. These prefixes MUST NOT appear as on-link to any other node (e.g., via Router Advertisements).
| TOC |
For each registered IPv6 prefix, the home agent MUST advertise its reachability as defined in NEMO [RFC3963] (Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, “Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol,” January 2005.), section 6.3.
| TOC |
A dual stack home agent that supports the IPv6 extensions defined in this specification, MUST keep track of the following IPv6 related state for the mobile nodes it supports, in addition to the state defined in [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.).
- Registered IPv6 prefix(es) and prefix length(s)
- Tunneling mode for IPv6 traffic:
- Tunnel to IPv4 HoA and accept IPv6 tunneled from IPv4 HoA
- Tunnel to CoA and accept IPv6 tunneled from CoA
When IPv6 traffic is encapsulated over the tunnel between the HA and the mobile node's care-off address, the tunneling mechanism used should be the same as the mechanism negotiated by the Mobile IP header as defined in MIPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.). In that case, when IPinIP encapsulation is negotiated, IPv6 is tunneled over IPv4 according to [RFC4213] (Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, “Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers,” October 2005.). GRE and Minimal Encapsulation techniques also allow tunneling of IPv6 packets by setting the Protocol Type [RFC2784] (Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, “Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE),” March 2000.) and Protocol [RFC2004] (Perkins, C., “Minimal Encapsulation within IP,” October 1996.) fields correspondingly, to appropriate payload type defined for IPv6 by IANA. When, however, IPv6 traffic is encapsulated over the tunnel between the HA and the mobile node's home address, IPv6 is always tunneled over IPv4 according to [RFC4213] (Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, “Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers,” October 2005.), no matter what tunneling mechanism is negotiated in MIPv4 signaling.
Tunneling mode selection for IPv6 traffic depends on the following parameters in a successful registration request:
1) A registration request is received with one or more IPv6 prefix request extensions. An IPv6 tunneling mode extension is not included.
All IPv6 packets destined to the registered IPv6 prefix(es) MUST be tunneled by the home agent to the registered IPv4 home address of the mobile. The home agent first encapsulates the IPv6 packet, addressing it to the mobile node's IPv4 home address, and then tunnels this encapsulated packet to the foreign agent. This extra level of encapsulation is required so that IPv6 routing remains transparent to a foreign agent that does not support IPv6. When received by the foreign agent, the unicast encapsulated packet is detunneled and delivered to the mobile node in the same way as any other packet. The mobile node must decapsulate the received IPv4 packet in order to recover the original IPv6 packet.
Additionally, the home agent MUST be prepared to accept reverse tunneled packets from the IPv4 home address of the mobile encapsulating IPv6 packets sent by that mobile.
2) A registration request is received with one or more IPv6 prefix request extensions. An IPv6 tunneling mode extension is included.
All IPv6 packets destined to the registered IPv6 prefix(es) SHOULD be tunneled by the home agent to the registered care-of address of the mobile node. Additionally, the home agent SHOULD be prepared to accept reverse tunneled packets from the care-of address of the mobile encapsulating IPv6 packets sent by that mobile. The home agent MAY ignore the presence of the IPv6 tunneling mode extension and act as in case (1) above.
The home agent SHOULD check that all inner IPv6 packets received from the mobile node over a tunnel with outer source address the home address or the care-of address, include a source address that falls under the registered IPv6 prefix(es) for that mobile node. If the source address of the outer header of a tunneled packet is not the registered IPv4 care-of address or the registered IPv4 home addresses, the packet SHOULD be dropped. If the source address of the inner header of an tunneled packet does not match any of the registered prefixes the packet SHOULD be dropped.
Multicast packets addressed to a group to which the mobile node has successfully subscribed, MUST be tunneled to the mobile node.
| TOC |
IPv6 multicast membership control is provided as defined in MIPv6 [RFC3775] (Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” June 2004.), Section 10.4.3. The only clarification required for the purpose of this specification is that all MLD [RFC2710] (Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, “Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6,” October 1999.) or MLDv2 [RFC3810] (Vida, R. and L. Costa, “Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6,” June 2004.) messages between the mobile node and the home agent MUST be tunneled between the mobile node and the home agent, bypassing the foreign agent. Note that if tunneling to the care-of address has been negotiated for other traffic, then the rest of the traffic continues using this tunnel.
| TOC |
A dual stack foreign agent that supports the IPv6 extensions defined in this specification MUST keep track of the following IPv6 related state for the mobile IP clients it supports in addition to the state defined in [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.).
- IPv6 Prefix(es) and Prefix Length(s)
- Tunneling mode for IPv6 traffic:
- accept IPv6 encapsulated in IPv4 and reverse tunnel IPv6
- IPv6 is tunneled directly to the IPv4 HoA so the foreign agent will not provide encapsulation/decapsulation services for IPv6 traffic for this mobile.
When a foreign agent receives a registration request with IPv6 prefix request extension(s) it has the following choices:
1) Ignore the extension(s). The registration request is forwarded as is to the home agent.
The foreign agent SHOULD operate according to MIPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.)
2) Attach an IPv6 tunneling mode extension to the registration request sent to the home agent.
The foreign agent MUST be prepared to decapsulate and deliver IPv6 packets, in addition to the IPv4 packets, sent to it in the home agent to foreign agent tunnel for that mobile node. The foreign agent MUST be prepared to receive IPv6 packets from the mobile node, in addition to IPv4 packets. All IPv6 traffic MUST be reverse tunneled to the home agent by the foreign agent irrespectively from the reverse tunneling setting negotiated for IPv4 packets by mechanisms in [RFC3024] (Montenegro, G., “Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised,” January 2001.)
If the foreign agent sets the R flag included in the mobility agent advertisement [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) and a mobile node uses the co-located address mode of operation, the foreign agent MUST NOT include an IPv6 tunneling mode extension in the registration request messages sent from that mobile node.
| TOC |
A dual stack mobile node that supports the extensions described in this document MAY use these extensions to register its IPv6 prefix(es) while moving between access routers.
The mobile node MAY include one or more IPv6 prefix request extension(s) in the registration request.
In this case the mobile MUST take the following action depending on the extensions included in the registration reply it receives in response to the registration request:
1) The registration reply does not include any IPv6 Prefix Reply extensions.
The mobile node SHOULD assume that the home agent does not support the extensions defined in this specification. The mobile node SHOULD continue to operate according to MIPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.).
2) The registration reply includes one or more IPv6 Prefix Reply extensions.
The mobile node MUST match each IPv6 prefix reply extension with one of the IPv6 prefix request extensions earlier included in the corresponding registration request message.
If a matching IPv6 prefix reply extension is not included for one or more of corresponding IPv6 prefix request extensions included in the registration request message, the mobile node SHOULD assume that these IPv6 prefixes are rejected.
For each matching IPv6 prefix reply extension the mobile node MUST inspect the code field. If the field is set to a rejection code then the corresponding IPv6 prefix registration has been rejected. If the code field is set to an acceptance code then the corresponding IPv6 prefix registration has been accepted.
If the code field is set to “0” then the mobile node MUST be prepared to send/receive IPv6 packets encapsulated in the bidirectional tunnel between the home agent address and the registered IPv4 home address of the mobile node.
If the code field is set to “1” then the mobile node MUST act as follows:
- If the care-of address mode of operation is used, the mobile node MUST be prepared to send/receive IPv6 traffic on its interface natively (i.e., without any Mobile IP related tunnel headers). If reverse tunneling is negotiated, then IPv6 traffic sent by the mobile node may be reverse tunneled via the foreign agent using either the direct delivery style or the encapsulating delivery style as defined in [RFC3024] (Montenegro, G., “Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised,” January 2001.) for IPv4 traffic.
- If the co-located care-of address mode is used, the mobile node MUST be prepared to send/receive IPv6 packets over the bidirectional tunnel between the home agent address and its co-located care-of address.
The mobile node SHOULD include exactly one IPv6 tunneling mode extension if it uses the co-located care-of address model and it wants to request that IPv6 packets are tunneled to its co-located care-of address. If the mobile node uses the co-located care-of address model but it does not include the IPv6 tunneling mode extension, the home agent will tunnel IPv6 traffic to the mobile node’s IPv4 home address. The mobile node MUST NOT include an IPv6 tunneling mode extension if it uses the foreign agent care-of address mode of operation. Note that if the mobile includes an IPv6 tunneling mode extension in this case, IPv6 packets could be tunneled to the FA by the HA. The FA is then likely to drop them since it may not have appropriate state to process them.
| TOC |
An implementation can use any number of mechanisms to allocate IPv6 prefixes to a mobile node. Once one or more IPv6 prefixes are allocated, they can be registered using the extensions and mechanism already described in this specification.
How a home agent decides to accept an IPv6 prefix for a given mobile node is out of scope of this specification. Local configuration or external authorization via an authorization system e.g., Diameter [RFC3588] (Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” September 2003.), or other mechanisms may be used to make such determination
| TOC |
A dual stack mobile node MAY use prefix delegation as defined in DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] (Troan, O. and R. Droms, “IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6,” December 2003.) to get access to IPv6 prefixes. In that case, if the mobile is not directly attached to its home agent, the mobile MUST first register its IPv4 home address as per MIPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.). When that is done the mobile can generate a link local IPv6 address and use it to send DHCP messages according to [RFC3633] (Troan, O. and R. Droms, “IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6,” December 2003.). All IPv6 messages at this stage MUST be tunneled over the IPv4 tunnel between the mobile's IPv4 home address and the home agent's IPv4 address.
Once prefixes are delegated, and assuming explicit mode is used, the mobile node SHOULD send a registration request with appropriate IPv6 prefix request extensions to the home agent to register the delegated prefixes.
| TOC |
The mobile IP registration lifetime included in the registration request header is valid for all the bindings created by the registration request, which may include bindings for IPv6 prefix(es).
A registration request with a zero lifetime can be used to remove all bindings from the home agent.
A re-registration request with non-zero lifetime can be used to deregister some of the registered IPv6 prefixes by not including corresponding IPv6 prefix request extensions in the registration request message.
| TOC |
If the care-of address is a private address then Mobile IP NAT Traversal as [RFC3519] (Levkowetz, H. and S. Vaarala, “Mobile IP Traversal of Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices,” April 2003.) MAY be used in combination with the extensions described in this specification. In that case, to transport IPv6 packets, the next header field of the Mobile Tunnel Data message header [RFC3519] (Levkowetz, H. and S. Vaarala, “Mobile IP Traversal of Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices,” April 2003.) MUST be set to the value for IPv6.
| TOC |
This specification operates in the security constraints and requirements of [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.). It extends the operations defined in [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) for IPv4 home addresses to cover home IPv6 prefixes and provides the same level of security for both IP address versions.
As defined in the security considerations section of RFC3344, ingress filtering in the data path may prevent mobiles from using triangular routing for their IPv6 communications even if the foreign agent used supports the dual stack extensions defined in this specification. In such cases reverse tunneling can be used to allow for effective ingress filtering in intermediate routers without blocking IPv6 traffic to reach its destination.
Home agents MUST perform appropriate checks for reversed tunneled IPv6 packets similar to what is defined in [RFC3024] (Montenegro, G., “Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised,” January 2001.) for IPv4 packets. The check defined in [RFC3024] (Montenegro, G., “Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised,” January 2001.) requires that the outer header's source address is set to a registered care-of address for the mobile node and as such the same check protects from attacks whether the encapsulated (inner) header is IPv4 or IPv6.
In addition to that, the home agent SHOULD check that the source address of the inner header is a registered IPv4 home address or IPv6 prefix for this mobile node. If that is not the case, the home agent SHOULD silently discard the packet and log the event as a security exception.
| TOC |
This specification requires the allocation of a new type number for DSMIPv4 extensions, from the space of numbers for skippable mobility extensions (i.e., 128-255) defined for Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers.
This specification also creates a new subtype space for the type number of this extension. The subtype values 1, 2 and 3 are defined in this specification.
Finally, this specification creates a new space for the code field of the IPv6 prefix reply extension. Values 0, 1, 8, and 9 are defined in this specification. Values 2-7 are reserved for accept codes and values 10-255 are reserved for reject codes.
Similar to the procedures specified for Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] (Perkins, C., “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” August 2002.) number spaces, future allocations from this number space require expert review [RFC5226] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” May 2008.).
| TOC |
Thanks to Pat Calhoun, Paal Engelstad, Tom Hiller and Pete McCann for earlier work on this subject. Thanks also to Alex Petrescu for various suggestions. Special thanks also to Sri Gundavelli and Kent Leung for their thorough review and suggestions.
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [RFC2004] | Perkins, C., “Minimal Encapsulation within IP,” RFC 2004, October 1996 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| [RFC2710] | Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, “Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6,” RFC 2710, October 1999 (TXT). |
| [RFC2784] | Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, “Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE),” RFC 2784, March 2000 (TXT). |
| [RFC3588] | Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” RFC 3588, September 2003 (TXT). |
| [RFC3810] | Vida, R. and L. Costa, “Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6,” RFC 3810, June 2004 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| George Tsirtsis | |
| Qualcomm | |
| Email: | tsirtsis@googlemail.com |
| Vincent Park | |
| Qualcomm | |
| Phone: | +908-947-7084 |
| Email: | vpark@qualcomm.com |
| Hesham Soliman | |
| Elevate Technologies | |
| Phone: | +614-111-410-445 |
| Email: | hesham@elevatemobile.com |
| TOC |
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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.