RFC 5149
Service Selection for Mobile IPv6
RFC 5149: Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 🎀
Okay bestie, this one is RFC 5149, called Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 🦋. It came out in February 2008 from the Network Working Group, and it's Informational, so it's sharing ideas, not setting a standard ✨. The authors are J. Korhonen and U. Nilsson from TeliaSonera, plus V. Devarapalli from Azaire 💅. The title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so it's a solo main character 👑.
Status of This Memo
This memo is here to give information to the Internet community 💜. It is not a specification for any kind of Internet standard 🙈. You can distribute it as much as you want, no limits 🌈.
Abstract
In some Mobile IPv6 setups, knowing who the mobile node or the mobility service subscriber is isn't enough to tell apart all the services that might be provisioned to that mobile node and its subscription 🥺. Being able to name a service on top of the mobile node's identity gives mobility service providers way more flexibility when they want to hand out multiple services to one subscription ✨. This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for both conventional Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6 🎀. Its whole job is to help home agents pick a specific service for the subscription during the binding registration procedure 🧚.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Service Selection Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Processing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71. Introduction ✨
Mobile IPv6 [2] has a bunch of ways to identify mobile nodes: home addresses [2], Network Access Identifiers (NAIs) [6][7], and credentials that work with the Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2) [10] 🔑. In some Mobile IPv6 deployments, identifying the mobile node or the mobility service subscriber through a Proxy Mobile IPv6 client [5] is also not enough to tell apart the multiple services that might be provisioned to that node and its subscription 🙃. (Quick note: in this doc, "mobile node" and "Proxy Mobile IPv6 client" mean the same thing, so they're used interchangeably 💅.)
Being able to specify services on top of the mobile node identity gives mobility service providers flexibility to offer multiple services within the same subscription 💖. Some examples:
- Enterprise data access, where the mobility service provider runs connectivity and mobility services on behalf of an enterprise 🏢.
- Access to service domains that aren't reachable from public networks because of some mobility service provider's business reasons 🤷♀️.
- Simultaneous access to different service domains that are separated based on the mobility service provider's policies 🫶.
- Easier policy and quality of service assignment for mobility service providers, based on the services subscribed to 📊.
- If no specific service is indicated, the home agent MUST act as if the default service, plain Internet access, had been requested 🌸. There's no absolute requirement that this default be allowed for all subscribers, but it is highly RECOMMENDED so normal subscribers don't have to use operator-specific configuration values just to get basic service 😭.
This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for Mobile IPv6 that helps home agents make specific service selections for the mobility service subscription during the binding registration procedure 🦋. The service selection can affect home agent routing decisions, Home Address or Home Network Prefix assignment policies, firewall settings, and security policies 🔥. The Service Selection option should be used in every Binding Update that makes a new registration to the home agent 💜.
Okay, the use-cases I listed above are the big picture. The overall goal is better manageability of services and service provisioning, from both the operator's and the service provider's point of view 👑. But there's a catch! Picking one service might restrict simultaneous access to other services from a user's point of view 🙈. For example, services could live in different administrative domains or external customer networks that filter inbound and outbound traffic a lot 💀.
2. Requirements 🎀
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. Service Selection Mobility Option 🧚
At most one Service Selection Mobility Option MAY be included in any Binding Update message 🌈. If the Binding Update message has any authorization-related options (like the Binding Authorization Data option [2]) or authentication-related options (like the Mobility Message Authentication option [8]), then the Service Selection option MUST appear before any mobility message authorization- or authentication-related options 🔐.
The Service Selection option SHOULD NOT be sent to a correspondent node 🙅♀️. The mobile node can't assume that the correspondent node knows anything about a specific service selection made between the mobile node and the home agent 🫣.
The Service Selection option has no alignment requirement as such 📏.
Here's how the option is laid out 🦋:
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 = 20 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Service Selection Mobility OptionHere's what each field does:
- Type: 8-bit identifier set to 20 of the type of the skipable mobility option 🏷️.
- Length: 8-bit unsigned integer, representing the length of the Service Selection Mobility Option in octets, excluding the Option Type and Option Length fields 📏. A value of zero (0) is not allowed 🚫.
- Identifier: A variable-length encoded service identifier string used to identify the requested service 🪪. The identifier string length is between 1 and 255 octets 🔢. This specification allows international identifier strings based on Unicode characters, encoded as UTF-8 [3] and formatted using Normalization Form KC (NFKC) as specified in [4] 🌍.
Some valid examples of Service Selection option Identifiers are 'ims', 'voip', and 'voip.companyxyz.example.com' 🍓. At minimum, the Identifier MUST be unique among the home agents to which the mobile node is authorized to register 💖.
4.3. Correspondent Node Considerations 💅
Okay bestie, so unless the correspondent node and the home agent know the same stuff about mobility services, the Service Selection option is kinda more or less useless info to the correspondent node 🙈. It's giving "who asked" 💀. So in that case the correspondent node SHOULD silently ignore the Service Selection option 🫶.
There are deployment cases where the home agent and a correspondent node, for example, belong to the same administrative domain 🌈. In that setup, it's possible the correspondent node shares the same knowledge of the services as the home agent ✨. That means the correspondent node is, for example, able to provide service-based traffic handling to mobile nodes. Main character energy 👑.
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, Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements should use Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [9] in transport mode with a non-null encryption transform to provide message confidentiality.
Bestie, this part is serious 😭. If your service selection info is supposed to stay private, don't let it fly across the wire in plain sight. Protect those Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements with ESP in transport mode and a non-null encryption transform so the messages stay confidential 🔐.
6. IANA Considerations 🧚
A new Mobile IPv6 Mobility Option type has been assigned for the following new mobility option described in Section 3 🎀:
Service Selection Mobility Option is set to 20A new Mobile IPv6 registration denied by home agent Status Code has also been assigned 🌸. The Status Code was allocated from the range 128-255:
SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED is set to 1517. Acknowledgements 🙌
Jouni Korhonen would like to thank the TEKES MERCoNe project for providing funding to work on this document 💜. The authors would also like to thank Jari Arkko for his thorough review 🫶.
8. References 📚
8.1. 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.
[3] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[4] Davis, M. and M. Duerst, "Unicode Standard Annex #15; Unicode Normalization Forms", Unicode 5.0.0, October 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[5] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Work in Progress, December 2007.
[6] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[7] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005.
[8] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury, "Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4285, January 2006.
[9] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005.
[10] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, April 2007.
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
Vijay Devarapalli
Azaire Networks
4800 Great America Pkwy
Santa Clara, CA 95054
USA
EMail: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.comFull Copyright Statement ©
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008) 🌈.
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. It also does not 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 💖.
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc5149 2008-02
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms