DMM Working Group | W. Feng |
Internet-Draft | PSU |
Intended status: Standards Track | D. Moses |
Expires: September 18, 2018 | Intel |
March 17, 2018 |
Router Advertisement Extensions for On-Demand Mobility
draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-02
Router Advertisement / Router Solicitation is one of the ways for hosts to establish network IPv6 connectivity configuration. This document describes two approches to allowing a router to specify service continuity type availability to mobile hosts. Mobile hosts can then configure their IP address to the preferred service continuity type. Two possibilities are considered: (i) creating an extension to the router advertisement prefix information option to allow the router to specify service connectivity types, and (ii) specifying a new RA options that allows the router to specify the service connectivity types.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 18, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
[I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different types of mobility related network services provided by access network to mobile hosts. In particular, it defines different types of service continuity types as mobile nodes move between different points of attachments.
This document proposes two such options to the router advertisement message ([RFC4861]) to allow the router to convey service continuty types services associated with an Ipv6 prefix. The possibilities considered are: (i) creating an extension to the router advertisement prefix information option to allow the router to specify service connectivity types, and (ii) specifying a new RA options that allows the router to specify the service connectivity types.
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].
IP prefixes are conveyed in Router Advertisement messages through the Prefix Information Option field ([RFC4861]). These prefix information option fields are used to allow hosts to configure their IPv6 addresses.
For distributed mobility management, there is a need for a network to be able to convey different prefixes for different connectivity scenarios. [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] defines different service continuity requirements including: Non-Persistent, Session-Lasting, Fixed, and Graceful-replacement. Currently, however, there is no way for a router to specify the continuity type through a router advertisement message.
This document proposes two possibilities for modifying the router advertisement message to include service continuity options that it is offering to mobile hosts that are attached: (i) creating an extension to the router advertisement prefix information option (PIO) to allow the router to specify service connectivity types, and (ii) specifying a new RA options that allows the router to specify the service connectivity types.
The first option is to modify the PIO. The advantages of this approach are that it is semantically in line with the intended function. That is, specifying prefix options. This, however, requires the modification of several bits in the existing PIO to support the specification of the service connectivity type.
The modified prefix information option fields are shown in the following figure:
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 | Prefix Length |L|A| Rsv1|SrvTp| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Valid Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preferred Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Prefix + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fields:
The definition of these service types is available in [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility].
0 is reserved and should not be used. All other values (5-7) are reserved for future use.
The value of the Service Type indicates the type of continuity service committed by the network for the associated IPv6 prefix.
Once an IPv6 prefix type is provided, any subsequent messages involving this prefix (lease renewal - for example) must include the IPv6 Continuity Service option with the same service type that was assigned by the server during the initial allocation.
Given the list of IPv6 prefixes and their associated service connectivity type, the mobile host can then configure its IP address to the appropriate service required by the application
Mobile hosts that do not support this new option should ignore the prefix information option.
Routers should also send an additional prefix information option without the session-type field from time to time for hosts that do not support this new format.
The second approach is to add a new RA option alongside the existing PIO (and other RA options). The advantage of this approach are that it leaves the existing PIO untouched. Furthermore, hosts that receive this option with the type that they do not understand can simply disregard it.
The new RA option specification is shown in the following figure:
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 | Prefix Length |L|A| Rsv1|SrvTp| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Valid Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preferred Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Prefix + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fields:
The definition of these service types is available in [I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility].
0 is reserved and should not be used. All other values (5-7) are reserved for future use.
The value of the Service Type indicates the type of continuity service committed by the network for the associated IPv6 prefix.
Once an IPv6 prefix type is provided, any subsequent messages involving this prefix (lease renewal - for example) must include the IPv6 Continuity Service option with the same service type that was assigned by the server during the initial allocation.
Given the list of IPv6 prefixes and their associated mobility service type, the mobile host can then configure its IP address to the appropriate service required by the application
Mobile hosts that do not support this new option should ignore the prefix information option.
Routers should also send an additional prefix information option without the session-type field from time to time for hosts that do not support this new format.
There are no specific security considerations for this option.
TBD
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[I-D.ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring] | Chan, A., Wei, X., Lee, J., Jeon, S. and C. Bernardos, "Distributed Mobility Anchoring", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-08, March 2018. |
[I-D.ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility] | Yegin, A., Moses, D., Kweon, K., Lee, J., Park, J. and S. Jeon, "On Demand Mobility Management", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-13, January 2018. |
[RFC3315] | Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July 2003. |
[RFC3633] | Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003. |
[RFC4861] | Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W. and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007. |
[RFC7934] | Colitti, L., Cerf, V., Cheshire, S. and D. Schinazi, "Host Address Availability Recommendations", BCP 204, RFC 7934, DOI 10.17487/RFC7934, July 2016. |