rfc3025.txt

RFC3025:Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions


RFC 3025          Mobile IP Vendor Specific Extensions     February 2001


   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 RFC 2002 [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.









Dommety & Leung             Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3025          Mobile IP Vendor Specific Extensions     February 2001


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 RFC 2002 [1] and extended in RFC 2356
   [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.








Dommety & Leung             Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3025          Mobile IP Vendor Specific Extensions     February 2001


7. References

   [1] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, October 1996.

   [2] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700,
       October 1994.

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

   [4] Montenegro, G., "Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP", RFC 2344, May
       1998.

   [5] Montenegro, G. and V. Gupta, "Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for
       Mobile IP", RFC 2356, June 1998.

8. Authors' Addresses

   Gopal Dommety
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134

   EMail: [e-mail]


   Kent Leung
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134

   EMail: [e-mail]



















Dommety & Leung             Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3025          Mobile IP Vendor Specific Extensions     February 2001


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 RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Dommety & Leung             Standards Track                     [Page 8]