RFC 4065
Instructions for Seamoby and Experimental Mobility Protocol IANA Allocations
RFC 4065 🦋 Instructions for Seamoby and Experimental Mobility Protocol IANA Allocations
okay bestie, this is RFC 4065 and it's part 1 of 2 🎀 (sections 1 through 6, part 2 picks up at Section 7 💖). It's from the Network Working Group, written by J. Kempf at DoCoMo Labs USA, and it's classed as Experimental 🧪. The date is July 2005. It doesn't obsolete or update any other RFC, since there are no Obsoletes or Updates lines in the header 🙅♀️.
Status of This Memo
this memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community 🧪. it is not an Internet standard of any kind, and the community is actually asking for discussion and suggestions for improvement 💅. distribution of this memo is unlimited ✨.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005) ©️
Abstract
ok so the Seamoby Candidate Access Router Discovery (CARD) protocol and the Context Transfer Protocol (CXTP) are experimental protocols built to speed up IP handover between wireless access routers 📶. they need IANA allocations for ICMP type and options, Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Payload Protocol Identifiers, port numbers, and registries for certain formatted message options 🗂️. this document is the instructions to IANA about which allocations the Seamoby protocols need. the ICMP subtype extension format for Seamoby was also designed so other experimental mobility protocols can use it, and the SCTP port number is available for them too 🦋.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................. 2
2. Common IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations.............................. 2
3. IPv4 Allocations.............................................. 3
4. IPv6 Allocations.............................................. 3
5. Candidate Access Router Discovery Protocol Registries......... 3
6. Context Transfer Profile Type Registry........................ 5
7. Context Transfer Protocol Authorization Token Calculation
Algorithm..................................................... 5
8. ICMP Experimental Mobility Subtype Format and Registry........ 5
9. Utilization by Other Experimental Mobility Protocols.......... 6
10. Normative References.......................................... 6
11. Security Considerations....................................... 7
12. IANA Considerations........................................... 71. Introduction ✨
okay so the Seamoby Candidate Access Router Discovery (CARD) protocol [RFC4066] and the Context Transfer Protocol (CXTP) [RFC4067] are experimental protocols designed to speed up IP handover between wireless access routers 🚀. they need IANA allocations for ICMP options and type, SCTP Payload Protocol Identifiers, port numbers, and the setup of registries for certain formatted message options 📋.
Because they're experimental, there's no guarantee they'll ever get widespread deployment in their current form 🥲. So it's prudent (very mature of them, honestly) to conserve Internet numbering resources that other protocols might need later on, ones that could actually see wider deployment 🌸.
this document has the IANA instructions for the Seamoby protocols. the ICMP subtype extension format was also designed so other experimental mobility protocols could use it 🧚.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] 📖. the allocation policy names Specification Required, IETF Consensus Action, and Designated Expert are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2434 [RFC2434] 💜.
2. Common IPv4 and IPv6 Allocations 🌈
IANA has assigned SCTP port numbers 5090 for use by [RFC4066] and 5091 for use of [RFC4067]. 🎀 For the inter-access router CARD protocol use of SCTP, check out Section 5.2.1 of [RFC4066]. for the inter-access router CXTP use of SCTP, see Section 3.1 of [RFC4067] 🫶.
3. IPv4 Allocations 🍓
IANA has assigned ICMP type 41 for IPv4, identifying the ICMP messages used by experimental mobility protocols such as Seamoby 🔥. for a description of the experimental mobility CARD ICMP messages, see Section 5.1.1 of [RFC4066]. for the CXTP ICMP messages specified by Seamoby, see Section 3.2 of [RFC4067]. and for the experimental mobility protocol ICMP subtype format and initial allocations, see Section 9 of this document 💅.
IANA has also assigned Mobile IPv4 Foreign Agent Discovery [RFC3344] option type codes for the following:
Code Purpose Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------------
137 CARD MN-AR signature option Section 6.4 of [RFC4066]
138 CARD Request option Section 5.1.2.1 of [RFC4066]
139 CARD Reply option Section 5.1.2.2 of [RFC4066]4. IPv6 Allocations 👑
IANA has assigned ICMP type code 150 for IPv6, identifying the ICMP messages used by experimental mobility protocols such as Seamoby ✨. for the CARD experimental mobility ICMP messages, see Section 5.1.1 of [RFC4066]. for the CXTP ICMP messages specified by Seamoby, see Section 3.2 of [RFC4067]. and for the experimental mobility protocol subtype format and initial allocations, see Section 9 of this document 🫶.
IANA has also assigned IPv6 RFC 2461 Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461] option type codes for the following:
Code Purpose Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------
138 CARD Request option Section 5.1.2.1 of [RFC4066]
139 CARD Reply option Section 5.1.2.2 of [RFC4066]5. Candidate Access Router Discovery Protocol Registries 🗂️
for CARD, IANA is going to maintain two brand new registries, named:
- The AVP Type Registry,
- The Layer 2 Access Technology Identifier Registry.
these are described in the subsections below 💖.
5.1. AVP Type Registry
the AVP Type Registry lets the CARD AVP type space grow in the future to include new AVPs 🌱. AVP Type codes are 16 bit unsigned integers. for a description of AVPs, see Section 5.1.4 of [RFC4066] 📚.
The registry SHALL be initially populated with the following table:
AVP Name Type Code
----------------------------------------------
RESERVED 0x00future allocations of AVP type codes will be made through Expert Review, as defined in RFC 2434 🔎.
5.2. Layer 2 Access Technology Identifier Registry
the Layer 2 Access Technology Identifier registry is where type codes get registered to uniquely identify specific access technologies in the L2-Type field of the CARD L2 ID sub-option 🛜. L2 ID codes are 16 bit unsigned integers. for a description of the CARD L2 ID sub-option, see Section 5.1.3.1 of [RFC4066] ✨.
The registry SHALL initially be populated with the following table:
Layer 2 Access Technology Type Code
----------------------------------------------
RESERVED 0x00
IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet) 0x01
IEEE 802.11a 0x02
IEEE 802.11b 0x03
IEEE 802.11g 0x04
IEEE 802.15.1(Bluetooth) 0x05
IEEE 802.15.3 0x06
IEEE 802.15.4 0x07
IEEE 802.16 0x08future allocation of Layer 2 Access Technology identifiers will be made by Specification Required, as defined in RFC 2434 🧾. All requests for allocations MUST be accompanied by a reference to a technical document in which the design of the Layer 2 access technology is described. no skipping this step, periodt 💀.
6. Context Transfer Profile Type Registry 🧚♀️
CXTP requires IANA to maintain a registry named the Context Transfer Profile Type Registry 🌸. it's a registry of context Feature Profile Type identifiers. Feature Profile Type identifiers are 16 bit unsigned integers that identify particular types of feature contexts. for a description of how contexts are carried in CXTP, see Section 2.4 of [RFC4067] 🦋.
The registry SHALL initially be populated with the following table:
Context Profile Type Code
----------------------------------------------
RESERVED 0x00
IPv6 Multicast Listener Context 0x01future allocations of Feature Profile Type codes will be made through Expert Review, as defined in RFC 2434 💜.
10. Normative References ✨
okay bestie, these are the docs this one leans on to work. no cap, you can't really read this RFC without them 📚
- [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 🎀
- [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. 🌸
- [RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344, August 2002. 🦋
- [RFC4066] Liebsch, M., Ed., Singh, A., Ed., Chaskar, H., Funato, D., and E. Shim, "Candidate Access Router Discovery (CARD)", RFC 4066, July 2005. 💜
- [RFC4067] Loughney, J., Ed., Nahkjiri, M., Perkins, C., and R. Koodli, "Context Transfer Protocol", RFC 4067, July 2005. 🧚
11. Security Considerations 🔒
okay so the security section? literally just one line: there are no security considerations associated with this document. 🙈 no drama, no spooky attack vectors, just a clean slate ✨
12. IANA Considerations 🎀
the IANA section is kind of iconic because the whole document is basically about IANA considerations. 💅 so this one is a little meta, periodt 👑
Author's Address 🦋
this is where you find the author. 🌈
James Kempf
DoCoMo Labs USA
181 Metro Drive
Suite 300
San Jose, CA
95110
Phone: +1 408 451 4711
EMail: kempf@docomolabs-usa.comFull Copyright Statement 💅
copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). ✨
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 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 on whether any IPR (intellectual property rights) might cover the tech in this document, or whether any license for it might be available. it also doesn't claim it has searched for any such rights. 🧐 for the rules on rights in RFC documents, check BCP 78 and BCP 79.
copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses that will be made available, and the results of any attempt to get a general license or permission for implementers or users of this spec can all be found through the IETF online IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 🗂️
the IETF also invites anyone to flag any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights that might cover tech needed to implement this standard. just send it to ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 💌
Acknowledgement 🫶
funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. 🌸 thank you, legends 💖
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc4065 2005-07
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms