Network Working Group Yuankui.zhao Internet-Draft Shanghai Huawei Technology Intended status: Standards Track Feb 25, 20067 Expires: Sep 5, 2007 MIP type decision in netlmm workgroup draft-zhao-netlmm-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 Decision for Mip type February 2006 Abstract Currently, this comes from the policy associated with that mobile. But a MS maybe has the MIP capability.We need a flag to know if a MS need Proxy MIP capability.This document explains how 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. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. A example :use DHCP protocol to inform the mip type of MS. . . 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 Decision 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 terminal should 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 if a MS wish to have the Proxy MIP support. 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 Decision for Mip type February 2006 2. Overview Network decide a MS need the proxy MIP is triggered by some entry network progress, such as PPP,DHCP,ND etc. Currently, PPP has a option to indicate the mobile capability of a MS(simple IP or mobile IP). But others didn't have.If we think it right, we should do this. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006 3. Implementation When a MS entry into network,it utilizes some protocols to acquire initial network argument.Those protocols maybe PPP/DHCP/ND etc. We can indicate the capability of the mobility preference of this MS. Then network can decide if need to do the proxy MIP for this MS. Currently, PPP has defined this option. How about DHCP / ND and others? also need ,right? Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006 4. A example :use DHCP protocol to inform the mip type of MS 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 6] Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006 5. Security Considerations Secure guarante1 can utilize the detail protocol defination. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Decision for Mip type February 2006 6. Conclusions We need let MS has the ability to inform network about it's capability in the selection of mobility mechnism. Yuankui zhao Sep 5, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Decision 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 Decision for Mip type February 2006 8. References 8.1. Normative References [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]