分享
 
 
 

RFC3025 - Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group G. Dommety

Request for Comments: 3025 K. Leung

Category: Standards Track cisco Systems

February 2001

Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions

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 Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document defines two new extensions to Mobile IP. These

extensions will facilitate equipment vendors and organizations to

make specific use of these extensions as they see fit for research or

deployment purposes.

1. IntrodUCtion

Current specification of Mobile IP [1] does not allow for

organizations and vendors to include organization/vendor-specific

information in the Mobile IP messages. With the imminent wide scale

deployment of Mobile IP it is useful to have vendor or organization-

Specific Extensions to support this capability. This document

defines two extensions that can be used for making organization

specific extensions by vendors/organizations for their own specific

purposes.

1.1. Specification Language

The keyWords "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 [3].

In addition, the following words are used to signify the requirements

of the specification.

silently discard

The implementation discards the datagram without further

processing, and without indicating an error to the sender.

The implementation SHOULD provide the capability of logging

the error, including the contents of the discarded datagram,

and SHOULD record the event in a statistics counter.

2. Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions

Two Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions are described, Critical

(CVSE) and Normal (NVSE) Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions.

The basic differences between the Critical and Normal Extensions are

that when the Critical extension is encountered but not recognized,

the message containing the extension MUST be silently discarded,

whereas when a Normal Vendor/Organization Specific Extension is

encountered but not recognized, the extension SHOULD be ignored, but

the rest of the Extensions and message data MUST still be processed.

Another difference between the two is that Critical

Vendor/Organization Extension has a length field of two octets and

the NVSE has a length field of only one octet.

2.1. Critical Vendor/Organization Specific Extension (CVSE)

The format of this extension is as shown below.

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 Reserved Length

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Vendor/Org-ID

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Vendor-CVSE-Type Vendor-CVSE-Value ...

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: Critical Vendor/Organization Specific Extension

Type CVSE-TYPE-NUMBER 37

Reserved Reserved for future use. MUST be set to 0 on sending,

MUST be ignored on reception.

Length Length in bytes of this extension, not including the Type

and Length bytes.

Vendor/Org-ID

The high-order octet is 0 and the low-order 3 octets are

the SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the

Vendor in network byte order, as defined in the Assigned

Numbers RFC[2].

Vendor-CVSE-Type

Indicates the particular type of Vendor-CVSE-Extension.

The administration of the Vendor-CVSE-Types is done by the

Vendor.

Vendor-CVSE-Value

Vendor/organization specific data of this Vendor-CVSE-

Extension. These data fields may be published in future

RFCs. The Vendor-CVSE-Value is zero or more octets. The

length of this field can be computed from the Length Field

Value.

If an implementation does not recognize the CVSE, according to RFC

2002 [1], the entire packet is to be silently dropped.

2.2. Normal Vendor/Organization Specific Extension (NVSE)

The format of this extension is as shown below.

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 Reserved

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Vendor/Org-ID

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Vendor-NVSE-Type Vendor-NVSE-Value ...

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: Normal Vendor/Organization Specific Extension

Type NVSE-TYPE-NUMBER 133

Length Length in bytes of this extension, not including the Type

and Length bytes.

Reserved Reserved for future use. To be set to 0.

Vendor/Org-ID

The high-order octet is 0 and the low-order 3 octets are

the SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the

Vendor in network byte order, as defined in the Assigned

Numbers RFC[2].

Vendor-NVSE-Type Indicates the particular type of Vendor-NVSE-

Extension. The administration of the Vendor-NVSE-Types is

done by the Vendor.

Vendor-NVSE-Value

Vendor/organization specific data of this Vendor-NVSE-

Extension. These data fields may be published in future

RFCs. The Vendor-NVSE-Value is zero or more octets. The

length of this field can be computed from the Length

Field Value.

2.3 Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions Processing Considerations

When a Mobile IP entity receives a registration request message (or

any other request/update message) with an extension of type CVSE-

TYPE-NUMBER and recognizes it, but the extension contains an

unknown/unsupported vendor ID or Vendor-CVSE-Type, a registration

reject (or the appropriate deny message) MUST be sent with the error

code to indicate that the registration was rejected due to the

presence of an unknown CVSE.

When a Mobile IP entity receives a registration reply (or any other

mobile IP reply/acknowledgement message) with an extension of type

CVSE-TYPE-NUMBER and recognizes it, but the extensions contains an

unknown/unsupported vendor ID or Vendor-CVSE-Type, the processing is

performed as described below.

1. If the Mobile IP entity is a transit node for the reply (i.e.,

this entity processes and sends the registration reply to another

entity) a registration reject (or the appropriate deny message) MUST

be sent with the error code to indicate that the registration was

rejected due to the presence of an unknown CVSE. For example, FA

when it receives an unknown CVSE in a registration reply from the HA,

should send a registration reject to the MN.

2. If the Mobile IP entity is not a transit node for the reply, the

reply is treated as a reject (or the appropriate deny message) due to

the presence of an unknown CVSE.

While designing enhancements wherein a CVSE is included in a reply

message, it should noted that the reply message could be discarded by

the mobile IP entity processing this message. Enhancements that

include a CVSE should take this into consideration during design.

When a Mobile IP entity receives a mobile IP related message

(registration request/reply, advertisement/solicitation, etc.) with

an extension of type NVSE-TYPE-NUMBER and recognizes it, but the

extension contains an unknown/unsupported vendor ID or Vendor-NVSE-

Type, the entire extension is skipped.

NOTE that according to RFC2002 [1], when an extension numbered

within the range 0 through 127 is encountered in a registration

message but not recognized, the message containing that extension

MUST be silently discarded. This document is compliant with the

above specification and specifies the action if the extension of type

CVSE-TYPE-NUMBER is encountered and recognized, but does not support

the vendor ID or the vendor type extension within.

2.4 Error Codes

The following error codes are defined.

Registration denied by the Foreign agent:

ERROR-FA-1 100: Unsupported Vendor-ID or

unable to interpret Vendor-CVSE-Type in the CVSE sent by the

Mobile Node to the Foreign Agent.

ERROR-FA-2 101: Unsupported Vendor-ID or

unable to interpret Vendor-CVSE-Type in the CVSE sent by the

Home Agent to the Foreign Agent.

Registration denied by the Home agent:

ERROR-HA-1 140: Unsupported Vendor-ID or

unable to interpret Vendor-CVSE-Type in the CVSE sent by the

Mobile Node to the Home Agent.

ERROR-HA-2 141: Unsupported Vendor-ID or

unable to interpret Vendor-CVSE-Type in the CVSE sent by the

Foreign Agent to the Home Agent.

3. Restrictions

Multiple TLV's with the types CVSE-TYPE-NUMBER and NVSE-TYPE-NUMBER

can be included in a message. TLVs with types CVSE-TYPE-NUMBER and

NVSE-TYPE-NUMBER can be placed anywhere after the fixed portion of

the Mobile IP message. These TLVs are eXPected to be protected by

the corresponding authenticator as necessary. Ordering of these

TLV's should not be modified by intermediate nodes.

4. IANA Considerations

The Critical Vendor/Organization Specific Extension (CVSE) as defined

in Section 2.1 and Normal Vendor/Organization Specific Extension

(NVSE) as defined in section 2.2 are proposed new extensions to the

Mobile IP protocol, defined in RFC2002 [1] and extended in RFC2356

[5].

IANA has assigned a Type value of CVSE-TYPE-NUMBER for the Critical

Vendor/Organization Specific Extension (CVSE), and a Type value of

NVSE-TYPE-NUMBER for the Normal Vendor/Organization Specific

Extension (NVSE). The numbers CVSE-TYPE-NUMBER and NVSE-TYPE-NUMBER

for the CVSE and the NVSE are taken from the numbering space defined

for Mobile IP registration extensions [1].

IANA has assigned new Foreign Agent Error Codes, ERROR-FA-1 and

ERROR-FA-2 taken from the numbering space defined for Mobile IP

Foreign Agent error codes [1]. IANA has also assigned new Home Agent

Error Codes, ERROR-HA-1 and ERROR-HA-2 taken from the numbering space

defined for Mobile IP Home Agent error codes [1].

5. Security Considerations

This document assumes that the Mobile IP messages are authenticated

using a method defined by the Mobile IP protocol. This document does

not impose any additional requirements on Mobile IP messages from a

security point of view. So this is not expected to be a security

issue.

6. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank TR45.4 WG, TR45.6 WG, Basavaraj

Patil, Phil Roberts, Jouni Malinen, and Patrice Calhoun for their

useful discussions.

7. References

[1] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC2002, October 1996.

[2] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC1700,

October 1994.

[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement

Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

[4] Montenegro, G., "Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP", RFC2344, May

1998.

[5] Montenegro, G. and V. Gupta, "Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for

Mobile IP", RFC2356, June 1998.

8. Authors' Addresses

Gopal Dommety

Cisco Systems, Inc.

170 West Tasman Drive

San Jose, CA 95134

EMail: gdommety@cisco.com

Kent Leung

Cisco Systems, Inc.

170 West Tasman Drive

San Jose, CA 95134

EMail: kleung@cisco.com

9. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有