    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]