Subject: [MOBILE-IP] RFC2002bis new sections

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:18:52 -0800

Hello,

I have written up two new appendices for RFC 2002bis.  I'm ready to
send it out after I find out whether the working group approves of
the inclusion of these sections.

Note that there is a collision for extension type 107.  I've included
the bibliography for easy reference.  The section types (e.g., 2.1.3)
refer to sections in RFC2002bis itself.

I can post the revised draft later, but first I wanted to get a sense
of whether people liked or hated these appendices.

Regards,
Charlie P.

=================================================================================
G. Number Assignments

   The information about assignment of numbers, given by IANA at
   http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/mobileip-numbers
   from the various Mobile IP number spaces is out of date.  It should
   be reorganized according to the recipe given in section 6.  The
   current values are as given in the following subsections.  All
   bracketed references are given in the bibliography.  Unbracketed
   numbers refer to sections of this document.

G.1. New Mobile IP Message Types

   Mobile IP messages are defined to be those that are sent to a message
   recipient at port 434 (UDP or TCP).

    Type  Name                                             Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    1     Registration Request                             [22]
    3     Registration Reply                               [22]

G.2. Extensions to RFC 1256 Router Advertisement
    Type  Name                                             Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    0     One-byte Padding                                 2.1.3
    16    Mobility Agent Advertisement                     2.1.1
    19    Prefix-Lengths                                   2.1.2

G.3. Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages
    Type  Name                                             Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    0     One-byte Padding
    32    Mobile-Home Authentication                       3.5.2
    33    Mobile-Foreign Authentication                    3.5.3
    34    Foreign-Home Authentication                      3.5.4
    129   Traversal Extension                              [19]
    130   Encapsulating Delivery Style Extension           [20]
    131   The Mobile Node NAI Extension                    [5]

G.4. Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply Messages

   The Code values in this section are divided in several major groups:

         0-8        Success Codes
         64-128     Error Codes from the Foreign Agent
         128-192    Error Codes from the Home Agent

    Type  Description                                      Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    0     registration accepted
    1     registration accepted without simultaneous bindings

    64    reason unspecified
    65    administratively prohibited
    66    insufficient resources
    67    mobile node failed authentication
    68    home agent failed authentication
    69    requested Lifetime too long
    70    poorly formed Request
    71    poorly formed Reply
    72    requested encapsulation unavailable
    73    requested Van Jacobson compression unavailable
    74    requested reverse tunnel unavailable             [19]
    75    reverse tunnel is mandatory and 'T' bit not set  [19]
    76    mobile node too distant                          [19]
    77    invalid care-of address
    78    registration timeout
    80    home network unreachable (ICMP error received)
    81    home agent host unreachable (ICMP error received)
    82    home agent port unreachable (ICMP error received)
    88    home agent unreachable (other ICMP error received)
    96    nonzero homeaddr required                        [5]
    97    missing NAI                                      [5]
    98    missing home agent                               [5]
    99    missing home address                             [5]

    128   reason unspecified
    129   administratively prohibited
    130   insufficient resources
    131   mobile node failed authentication
    132   foreign agent failed authentication
    133   registration Identification mismatch
    134   poorly formed Request
    135   too many simultaneous mobility bindings
    136   unknown home agent address
    137   requested reverse tunnel unavailable             [19]
    138   reverse tunnel is mandatory and 'T' bit not set  [19]
    139   requested encapsulation unavailable              [19]

H. Proposed Number Assignments

   Several Internet Drafts are under consideration by the mobile-ip
   working group.  In this section, the numbers that are suggested for
   use in those working group documents are listed.

H.1. Proposed Extensions to RFC 1256 Router Advertisement

   The numbers in this section are enumerated only as a courtesy to
   future writers of Internet Drafts.  Authors of new Internet Drafts
   MAY, of course, use the numbers listed here, as deemed appropriate by
   the then-current members of the working group.  Citations included in
   this section are NOT to be considered normative references.

    Type  Name                                             Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    24    Challenge                                        [4]

H.2. Proposed New Mobile IP Message Types

   The following new messages types are proposed to be recognized by
   Mobile IP entities that receive them at port 434.

    Type  Name                                             Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    16    Binding Warning message                          [26]
    17    Binding Request message                          [26]
    18    Binding Update message                           [26]
    19    Binding Acknowledge message                      [26]

H.3. Proposed Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages
    Type  Name                                             Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    16    Binding Warning message                          [26]
    36    Generalized Mobile IP Authentication             [4]
    38    Critical Vendor/Organization Specific            [9]
    40    Generalized Registration Key Request             [25]
    42    Generalized Mobile IP MN-HA Key Reply            [24]
    96    Previous Foreign Agent Notification              [26]
    132   MN-FA Challenge                                  [4]
    134   Normal Vendor/Organization Specific              [9]

H.4. Proposed Code Values for Mobile IP Registration Reply Messages

    Type  Description                                      Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------

    104   Unknown Challenge                                [4]
    105   Missing Challenge                                [4]
    106   Stale Challenge                                  [4]
    107   Missing MN-FA Authentication                     [24]
    107   MN-FA Unsupported Vendor Ext                     [9]
    108   HA-FA Unsupported Vendor Ext                     [9]

    141   MN-HA Unsupported Vendor Ext                     [9]
    142   HA-MN Unsupported Vendor Ext                     [9]

H.5. Proposed SPI Values for the Mobile IP Reserved SPIs

    Type  Description                                      Reference
    ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
    2     CHAP                                             [4, 33]
    3     MD5/prefix+suffix                                [24, 22]
    4     HMAC MD5                                         [24, 15]

I. Example Messages

I.1. Example ICMP Agent Advertisement Message Format

       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      |     Code      |           Checksum            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Num Addrs   |Addr Entry Size|           Lifetime            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Router Address[1]                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Preference Level[1]                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Router Address[2]                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Preference Level[2]                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        ....                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Type = 16   |     Length    |      Sequence Number          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Registration Lifetime         |R|B|H|F|M|G|V|T|  reserved     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Care-of Address[1]                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Care-of Address[2]                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         ....                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                     Optional  Extensions                      :
      :   ....                ......                      ......      :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I.2. Example Registration Request Message Format

   The UDP header is followed by the Mobile IP fields shown below:

    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 = 1  |S|B|D|M|G|V|T| |          Lifetime             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Home Address                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Home Agent                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Care-of Address                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                         Identification                        +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Optional Non-Auth Extensions for HA ...        |
   |                     ( variable length )                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type =32   |      Length   |           SPI                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          SPI (cont..)         |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   :         MN-HA Authenticator ( variable length )               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :           Optional  Non-Auth Extensions for FA .........
   :           Optional  MN-FA  Authentication Extension...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I.3. Example Registration Reply Message Format

   The UDP header is followed by the Mobile IP fields shown below:

    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 = 3    |     Code      |           Lifetime            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Home Address                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Home Agent                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                         Identification                        +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Optional  HA  Non-Auth Extensions ...         |
   |                     ( variable length )                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type =32   |      Length   |           SPI                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          SPI (cont...)        |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   :         MN-HA Authenticator ( variable length )               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :           Optional  Extensions  used by FA.........
   :           Optional  MN-FA Authentication Extension...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

References

    [1] R. Atkinson.  IP Authentication Header.  Request for Comments
        (Proposed Standard) 1826, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        August 1995.

    [2] S. M. Bellovin.  Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol Suite.
        ACM Computer Communications Review, 19(2), March 1989.

    [3] Ramon Caceres and Liviu Iftode.  Improving the Performance
        of Reliable Transport Protocols in Mobile Computing
        Environments.  IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
        13(5):850--857, June 1995.

    [4] P. Calhoun and C. E. Perkins.  Mobile IP Foreign Agent
        Challenge/Response Extension.
        draft-ietf-mobileip-challenge-08.txt, January 2000.  (work in
        progress).

    [5] Pat R. Calhoun and Charles E. Perkins.  Mobile IP Network
        Address Identifier Extension.
        draft-ietf-mobileip-mn-nai-07.txt, January 2000.  (work in
        progress).

    [6] D. Cong, M. Hamlen, and C. Perkins.  The Definitions of Managed
        Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2.  Request for
        Comments (Proposed Standard) 2006, Internet Engineering Task
        Force, October 1996.

    [7] S. Deering.  ICMP Router Discovery Messages.  Request for
        Comments (Proposed Standard) 1256, Internet Engineering Task
        Force, September 1991.

    [8] S. E. Deering.  Host extensions for IP multicasting.  Request
        for Comments (Standard) 1112, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        August 1989.

    [9] Gopal Dommety and Kent Leung.  Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific
        Extensions.
        draft-ietf-mobileip-vendor-ext-09.txt, November 1999.  (work in
        progress).

   [10] R. Droms.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol.  Request for
        Comments (Draft Standard) 2131, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        March 1997.

   [11] D. Eastlake, 3rd, S. Crocker, and J. Schiller.  Randomness
        Recommendations for Security.  Request for Comments
        (Informational) 1750, Internet Engineering Task Force, December
        1994.

   [12] S. Hanks, T. Li, D. Farinacci, and P. Traina.  Generic Routing
        Encapsulation (GRE).  Request for Comments (Informational) 1701,
        Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1994.

   [13] V. Jacobson.  Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial
        links.  Request for Comments (Proposed Standard) 1144, Internet
        Engineering Task Force, February 1990.

   [14] Van Jacobson.  Congestion Avoidance and Control.  In
        Proceedings, SIGCOMM '88 Workshop, pages 314--329. ACM Press,
        August 1988.  Stanford, CA.

   [15] H. Krawczyk, M. Bellare, and R. Canetti.  HMAC: Keyed-Hashing
        for Message Authentication.  Request for Comments
        (Informational) 2104, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        February 1997.

   [16] K. McCloghrie and F. Kastenholz.  Evolution of the Interfaces
        Group of MIB-II.  Request for Comments (Proposed Standard) 1573,
        Internet Engineering Task Force, January 1994.

   [17] G. McGregor.  The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol
        (IPCP).  Request for Comments (Proposed Standard) 1332, Internet
        Engineering Task Force, May 1992.

   [18] David L. Mills.  Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
        Specification, Implementation.  Request for Comments (Draft
        Standard) 1305, Internet Engineering Task Force, March 1992.

   [19] G. Montenegro.  Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP.  Request for
        Comments (Proposed Standard) 2344, Internet Engineering Task
        Force, May 1998.

   [20] G. Montenegro and V. Gupta.  Sun's SKIP Firewall Traversal for
        Mobile IP.  Request for Comments (Informational) 2356, Internet
        Engineering Task Force, June 1998.

   [21] C. Perkins.  IP Encapsulation within IP.  Request for Comments
        (Proposed Standard) 2003, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        October 1996.

   [22] C. Perkins.  IP Mobility Support.  Request for Comments
        (Proposed Standard) 2002, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        October 1996.

   [23] C. Perkins.  Minimal Encapsulation within IP.  Request for
        Comments (Proposed Standard) 2004, Internet Engineering Task
        Force, October 1996.

   [24] C. E. Perkins and P. Calhoun.  AAA Registration Keys for Mobile
        IP.
        draft-ietf-mobileip-aaa-key-01.txt, January 2000.  (work in
        progress).

   [25] C. E. Perkins and D. Johnson.  Registration Keys for Route
        Optimization.
        draft-ietf-mobileip-regkey-01.txt, January 2000.  (work in
        progress).

   [26] C. E. Perkins and D. Johnson.  Route Optimization in Mobile
        IP.
        draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-09.txt, January 2000.  (work in
        progress).

   [27] D. C. Plummer.  Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol:  Or
        converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet address
        for transmission on Ethernet hardware.  Request for Comments
        (Standard) 826, Internet Engineering Task Force, November 1982.

   [28] J. Postel.  User Datagram Protocol.  Request for Comments
        (Standard) 768, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1980.

   [29] J. Postel.  Internet Protocol.  Request for Comments (Standard)
        791, Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1981.

   [30] J. Postel.  Multi-LAN address resolution.  Request for Comments
        925, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1984.

   [31] J. Reynolds and J. Postel.  Assigned Numbers.  Request for
        Comments (Standard) 1700, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        October 1994.

   [32] R. Rivest.  The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm.  Request for
        Comments (Informational) 1321, Internet Engineering Task Force,
        April 1992.

   [33] W. Simpson.  PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol
        (CHAP).  Request for Comments (Draft Standard) 1994, Internet
        Engineering Task Force, August 1996.

   [34] W. Simpson and Editor.  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP).
        Request for Comments (Standard) 1661, Internet Engineering Task
        Force, July 1994.

   [35] J. Solomon.  Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support.
        Request for Comments (Proposed Standard) 2005, Internet
        Engineering Task Force, October 1996.

   [36] W. Richard Stevens.  TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1:  The
        Protocols.  Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1994.