RFC 6626
Dynamic Prefix Allocation for Network Mobility for Mobile IPv4 (NEMOv4)
Dynamic Prefix Allocation for Network Mobility for Mobile IPv4 (NEMOv4) 🦋
okay bestie, this is RFC 6626 and it's giving standards track 💅 It came out in May 2012 through the IETF, it's on the ISSN 2070-1721 and it updates RFC 5177 (so it's building on that one, not replacing it). Nothing gets obsoleted here, since the header doesn't list anything. The authors are G. Tsirtsis, V. Park, V. Narayanan (Qualcomm) and K. Leung (Cisco). Their full contact details are at the very end, so scroll down if you want to message them 🫶
Abstract ✨
so the base NEMOv4 spec is the one that adds mobile-network extensions to Mobile IPv4 🌸 this doc adds a dynamic prefix allocation mechanism on top of it, so the home agent can hand out mobile network prefixes on the spot. iconic, honestly 👑
Status of This Memo 📜
this is an Internet Standards Track document 🎀
it's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and it represents the consensus of the IETF community. it got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). if you want more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 5741 🧚
for the current status, any errata, and how to give feedback, go to http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6626 💜
Copyright Notice ©️
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 🌈
this document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication. please actually read those carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 🙈 Code Components pulled from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come with no warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents 🍓
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Requirements Notation ...........................................2
3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix Allocation ................................2
3.1. Mobile Client Considerations ...............................2
3.2. Home Agent Considerations ..................................3
4. Security Considerations .........................................4
5. IANA Considerations .............................................4
6. Acknowledgements ................................................4
7. Normative References ............................................41. Introduction 🌷
okay so the base NEMOv4 spec, [RFC5177], is what defines the extensions to Mobile IPv4 [RFC5944] for mobile networks. this spec adds support for the home agent to dynamically allocate mobile prefixes ✨ literally the main character update.
2. Requirements Notation 📝
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 [RFC2119]. these are the official BCP 14 words, so they're not just vibes 💅
3. Dynamic Mobile Prefix Allocation 🎀
the following extension is defined according to this spec 🧚
3.1. Mobile Client Considerations 💖
so according to this spec, the Prefix field of the Mobile Network Request extension MUST be set to zero. that's how the Mobile Router says "hey, please assign me mobile network prefix(es) from the home agent" 🥹 in that case the Mobile Router MAY set the prefix length field to zero, or to a length of its choice, as a hint to the home agent. Mobile Network Request extensions with the Prefix field set to zero MAY be included in a registration request message, whether it's the initial registration or a later one 🦋
when a Mobile Router gets a registration reply, it MUST process it as defined in Mobile IPv4 [RFC5944] and [RFC5177] ✨ if one or more network acknowledgement extensions come back with the Code field set to "Success", the Mobile Router SHOULD treat the prefixes in the matching Prefix fields as allocated prefixes and create the right bindings as defined in [RFC5177] 💅
if the Mobile Router sent a Mobile Network Request with the Prefix field set to zero and gets back a network acknowledgement extension with Code field set to 1 "invalid prefix", it may use that as a hint that the home agent doesn't support dynamic prefix allocation 🙈
3.2. Home Agent Considerations 👑
a home agent that gets a Mobile Network Request extension with the Prefix field set to zero MAY return a Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension [RFC5177] with the Prefix field set to the prefix it allocated to the Mobile Router. the length of that prefix is at the home agent's discretion 💜 the home agent MAY take the prefix length hint into account if one was included in the Mobile Network Request extension. once the home agent allocates a prefix, it MUST maintain the prefix registration table as defined in [RFC5177]. or, the home agent MAY return a Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension with the Code field set to one of the negative codes defined in [RFC5177] instead 🍓
dynamic mobile prefix allocation (as defined here) MAY be combined with dynamic home address allocation (as defined in [RFC5177]). in other words, the home address field of the registration request MAY be set to zero while the message also includes one or more Mobile Network Request extensions with the Prefix field also set to zero 🌈
once the home agent allocates a prefix, it MUST maintain the prefix registration table as defined in [RFC5177] again, because it's that important 🫶 the lifetime of the allocated prefix will be equal to the lifetime of the binding cache entry. the Mobile Router may request multiple mobile network prefixes to be assigned by the home agent. for a Mobile Network Prefix whose assignment was unsuccessful, the Code field in the matching Mobile Network Acknowledgement extension should be set to 4 (MOBNET_UNASSIGNED) ⭐
for dynamic prefix allocation, the Mobile Router's home address MAY be used to identify the client if it isn't set to zero. otherwise, as defined in the Network Access Identifier (NAI) extension [RFC2794] of Mobile IPv4 [RFC2794], the NAI extension needs to be included in the registration request. in that case, the same extension SHOULD be used to identify the Mobile Router for prefix allocation purposes 🔥
4. Security Considerations 🚨
⚠️ this part is serious, so read it carefully. this spec runs inside the security constraints and requirements of Mobile IPv4 [RFC5944], NAI [RFC2794], and [RFC5177]. 💀
home agent implementations SHOULD take steps to prevent address exhaustion attacks 😭 one way to limit how well such an attack works is to cap the number and size of prefixes any one Mobile Router can be allocated.
5. IANA Considerations 🧚
a new value has been assigned in the Mobile Network Acknowledgement Extension registry: 4 - Home Agent cannot assign a mobile network prefix (MOBNET_UNASSIGNED). 🦋
6. Acknowledgements 🫶
the authors want to thank Pete McCann, Alexandru Petrescu, Ralph Droms, and Jari Arkko for their reviews and comments. bestie squad goals 💖
7. Normative References 📚
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2794] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access
Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000.
[RFC5177] Leung, K., Dommety, G., Narayanan, V., and A. Petrescu,
"Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4",
RFC 5177, April 2008.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010.Authors' Addresses 💌
George Tsirtsis
Qualcomm
EMail: tsirtsis@googlemail.com
Vincent Park
Qualcomm
Phone: +908-443-8141
EMail: vpark@qualcomm.com
Vidya Narayana
Qualcomm
Phone: +858-845-2483
EMail: vidyan@qualcomm.com
Kent Leung
Cisco
Phone: +408-526-5030
EMail: kleung@cisco.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc6626 2012-05
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms