Mobility for IPv6 (MIP6) J. Korhonen Internet-Draft U. Nilsson Intended status: Standards Track TeliaSonera Expires: September 2, 2007 V. Devarapalli Azaire March 2007 Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 draft-korhonen-mip6-service-02.txt Status of this Memo 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 September 2, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract In some Mobile IPv6 deployments identifying the mobile node or the mobility service subscriber is not enough to distinguish between multiple services possibly provisioned to the said mobile node and its mobility service subscription. A capability to specify different services in addition to the mobile node identity can be leveraged to provide flexibility for mobility service providers on provisioning Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 2007 multiple services to one mobility service subscription. This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for both conventional Mobile IPv6 or Proxy Mobile IPv6 that is intended to assist home agents to make a specific service selection for the mobility service subscription during the binding update procedure. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Service Selection Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Processing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 2007 1. Introduction Mobile IPv6 [1] has a Mobile Node Identifier option (MN-NAI) [6] that provides a flexible way to identify mobile nodes using other identifiers than IPv6 addresses. Example of such identifier is a Network Access Identifier (NAI) [2]. Similarly, in some Mobile IPv6 deployments identifying the mobile node or the mobility service subscriber via a Proxy Mobile IPv6 client [7] is not enough to distinguish between multiple services possibly provisioned to the said mobile node and its mobility service subscription. The capability to specify different services in addition to the mobile node identity can be leveraged to provide flexibility for mobility service providers to provide multiple services within the same mobility service subscription. For example: o Provide an enterprise data access for witch the mobility service provider hosts connectivity and mobility services on behalf of the enterprise. o Provide access to service domains that are otherwise not accessible from public networks because of some mobility service provider's business reasons. o Provide simultaneous access to different service domains that are separated based on policies of the mobility service provider. o Enable easier policy assignment for mobility service providers based on the subscribed services. o In absence of the Service Selection option the home agent may provide, based on operator policies, a default service. For example, a plain Internet access could be an operator's default mobility service. This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for Mobile IPv6 that is intended to assist home agents to make specific service selections for the mobility service subscription during the binding update procedure. The service selection may affect home agent routing decisions and Home Address assignment policies. The Service Selection option should be used in combination with the Mobile Node Identifier option during the initial Binding Update at the beginning of the mobility session. 2. Requirements The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 2007 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [3]. 3. Service Selection Mobility Option The Service Selection mobility option can be included in any Mobile IPv6 Mobility Header message. If the Mobility Header message includes any authorization related options (such as the Binding Authorization Data option [1]) or authentication related options (such as the Mobility Message Authentication option [8]), then the Service Selection option MUST appear before any mobility message authorization or authentication related options. This option MAY be included in the initial Binding Update message when registering to a home agent at the beginning of the mobility session. The MN-NAI option SHOULD be included in the Binding Update message when the Service Selection option is used. Sending the Service Selection option in any Binding Update message is not prohibited. It should be noted that sending this option to correspondent nodes makes little or no sense unless the home agent and the correspondent nodes share the same knowledge of provided mobility services. The Service Selection option has no alignment requirement as such. 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 = TBD | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identifier... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Service Selection Mobility Option o Type: 8-bit identifier set to TBD (to be defined by IANA) of the type of the skipable mobility option. o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length of the Service Selection mobility option in octets, excluding the Option Type and Option Length fields. Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 2007 o Identifier: A variable length service identifier string used to identify the requested service. The Identifier string is encoded as a host name or a fully qualified domain name as defined in [4] and [5]. 'deadcoderssociety' and 'deadcoderssociety.example.com' are valid examples of Service Selection option Identifier strings. 4. Processing Considerations 4.1. Mobile Node Considerations A mobile node or a Proxy Mobile IPv6 client MAY include the Service Selection mobility option into Binding Update message. The option is used to identify the service to be associated with the mobility session and SHOULD only be included into the initial Binding Update message sent to a home agent. The provisioning of the service identifiers to the mobile node or to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 client is out of scope of this specification. The placement of the Service Selection option is as follows: when present this option MUST appear after the MN-NAI option and before any authorization and authentication related options. The Service Selection option is intended to be used with the MN-NAI option, but it is also possible to use Home Address to identify the mobile node as defined in [1]. 4.2. Home Agent Considerations Upon receiving the Service Selection option the home agent authenticates and authorizes the mobile node. If the home agent supports the Service Selection it MUST also verify that the mobile node is authorized for the service it included in the Service Selection option. The services the mobile node is authorized for SHOULD be part of the general mobile node subscription profile. If the mobile node is not authorized for the service the home agent MUST deny the registration and send a Binding Acknowledgement with a Status Code set to SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED (error code TBD). The Service Selection option is used to assist the authorization and identifies a specific service that is to be authorized. The Service Selection option MAY also affect the Home Address or Home Network Prefix allocation when for example used with the MN-NAI option. For the same NAI there MAY be different Home Addresses depending on the identified service. Furthermore, the Service Selection option MAY also affect the routing of the outbound IP packets in the home agent depending on the selected service. Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 2007 4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations Unless the correspondent node and the home agent share the same knowledge about mobility services the Service Selection option is more or less useless information to the correspondent node. The correspondent node SHOULD silently ignore the Service Selection option. 5. Security Considerations The protection for the Service Selection mobility option depends on the service that is being identified and eventually selected. If the service selection information should not be revealed on the wire it should be protected in a manner similar to Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements. 6. IANA Considerations A new Mobile IPv6 Mobility Option type is required for the following new mobility option described in Section 3: Service Selection Mobility Option is set to TBD A new Mobile IPv6 registration denied by home agent Status Code is required. The Status Code must be allocated from the range 128-255: SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED is set to TBD 7. Acknowledgements Jouni korhonen would like to thank TEKES MERCoNe project for providing funding to work on this document. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [1] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [2] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005. [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 2007 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [5] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003. 8.2. Informative References [6] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005. [7] Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6", draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-00 (work in progress), April 2007. [8] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury, "Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4285, January 2006. Authors' Addresses Jouni Korhonen TeliaSonera Corporation. P.O.Box 970 FIN-00051 Sonera Finland Email: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com Ulf Nilsson TeliaSonera Corporation. Marbackagatan 11 S-123 86 Farsta Sweden Email: ulf.s.nilsson@teliasonera.com Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 2007 Vijay Devarapalli Azaire Networks 4800 Great America Pkwy Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA Email: vijay.devarapalli@azaire.com Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Service Selection for MIPv6 March 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Korhonen, et al. Expires September 2, 2007 [Page 9]