Network Working Group Yuankui.zhao Internet-Draft Shanghai Huawei Technology Intended status: Standards Track Feb 25, 20067 Expires: Sep 5, 2007 DHCP option for MIP type Decision draft-zhao-dhc-miptype-00 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 5, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007). Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 Abstract Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol is used as the trigger of network to distinguish if a MS need the proxy mip capability.But a MS maybe has the MIP capability.We need a flag to know if a MS need or require Proxy MIP capability.This document explains we can define a flag in dhcp option to state that a MS wish or doesn't wish to have the Proxy MIP capability. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The Flag Suboption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. DHCP function entity consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 1. Introduction Currently in some standards development organizations(SDO) some simple IP terminal need to be implemented the MIP cability. That is finished by network without the MS's mobility support. That is named as PMIP(proxy MIP). But if all of the simple IP terminated will be provided with the PMIP by PMIP-enabled network? Or if MIP-enabled terminal can also have the PMIP support by PMIP-enabled network? These requirements are needed to be defined. This document defines a flag in dhcp option to indicate that a MS wish or doesn't wish to have the Proxy MIP capability. 1.1. 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 BCP 14 RFC 2119 [STANDARDS]. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 2. Overview In DHCP protocol, we definedd a new option to indicate that if a MS need the proxy MIP capability. This flag should be used in both of stateless DHCP protocol or stateful DHCP protocol. This flag should be used in both of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 protocols. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 3. The Flag Suboption This section describes the defination of the mip type flag in DHCP option. The format of the suboption is: 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Code | Length | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Code The suboption code. (TBD, to be assigned by IANA). Length The suboption length, 1 octet. Flags To indicate the mip type of the DHCP request sender 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |s|P|M|reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S: 0: Non-simple ip terminal 1: A simple ip terminal p: 0: No need the proxy MIP capability support 1: Need the proxy MIP capability support M: 0: A terminal Without the mobile ip capability 1: mobile ip terminal Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 4. DHCP function entity consideration The DHCP Relay forward DHCP request messages with this option without any modification on this option. After received DHCP request message,if can recognize this flag,the DHCP server/proxy record the mip type of the specific MS and do relevent operation based on network policy or user profile. If can't recognize this option, DHCP server/proxy will ignore it simply. If MS didn't have the capability to set this flag in DHCP message, it should send traditional DHCP message without this messagge. And network should have a default policy or priority to decide if a MS need to be provided with the proxy MIP support. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 5. Security Considerations Secure delivery of the configuration information from a DHCP server to the mobile node (DHCP client) relies on the overall DHCP security. The messages defined in this document are secured by DHCP security mechanisms. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 6. Conclusions We presented DHCP protocol used to indicated that if a MS need the Proxy MIP capability. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 7. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the discussions and feedback from WiMAX Forum NWG attendees. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 8. References 8.1. Normative References [DHCPv4] "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997, . [STANDARDS] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997, . Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 Authors' Addresses Yuankui Zhao Shanghai Huawei Technology Co.LTD Qian Chang Building No.450 Jin Yu Road Pudong Shanghai,201206 china Phone: Email: John.zhao@huawei.com Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft DHCP for Mip type February 2006 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). Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 12]