Mobile IPv6 Experimental Messages
draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-03

#x27;, 'Reserved' and the 'Checksum' fields.

   The 'Message Data' field carries the data specific to the
   experimental protocol extension.  The total length of the message is
   indicated by the 'Header Len' field in the Mobility Header.

Devarapalli               Expires April 7, 2008                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         MIPv6 Experimental Messages          October 2007

4.  Experimental Mobility Option

   The Experimental mobility option can be included in any Mobility
   Header message.  If the Mobility Header message includes a Binding
   Authorization Data option [2], then the Experimental Mobility Option
   should appear before the Binding Authorization Data option.

      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      |   Length      |        Data .....
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      A 8-bit field indicating that it is an experimental mobility
      option.

   Length

      A 8-bit indicating the length of the option in octets excluding
      the Type and Length fields.

   Data

      Data related to the experimental protocol extension.

5.  Security Considerations

   Protection for the Experimental Mobility Header message and mobility
   option depends on the experiment that is being carried out and the
   kind of information that is being carried in the messages.  If these
   messages carry information that should not be revealed on the wire or
   that can affect the binding cache entry at the home agent or the
   correspondent node, they should be protected in a manner similar to
   Binding Updates and Binding Acknowledgements.

   Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
   monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
   described in this document.  As new values for the fields are
   assigned, existing security analyzers that do not understand the new
   values may fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity, if the
   analyzer declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or in loss of
   security if it does forward the traffic and the new values are used
   as part of an attack.

Devarapalli               Expires April 7, 2008                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         MIPv6 Experimental Messages          October 2007

   When experimental code points are deployed within an administratively
   self-contained network domain, it must be ensured that that each code
   point is used consistently to avoid interference between experiments.
   When experimental code points are used in traffic that crosses
   multiple administrative domains, the experimenters should assume that
   there is a risk that the same code points will be used simultaneously
   by other experiments and thus that there is a possibility that the
   experiments will interfere.  Particular attention should be given to
   security threats that such interference might create.  Please see RFC
   4727 for more details [6].

6.  IANA Considerations

   The Experimental Mobility Header message defined in Section 3, should
   have the type value allocated from the same space as the 'MH Type'
   field in the Mobility Header [2].

   The Experimental mobility option defined in Section 4, should have
   the type value allocated from the same space as Mobility Options [2].

7.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Jari Arkko and Basavaraj Patil with
   whom the contents of this document were discussed first.

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.

8.2.  Informative References

   [3]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
        Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.

   [4]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
        "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
        January 2005.

   [5]  Gundavelli, S., "Proxy Mobile IPv6",

Devarapalli               Expires April 7, 2008                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         MIPv6 Experimental Messages          October 2007

        draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 (work in progress), March 2007.

   [6]  Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6,
        UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.

Author's Address

   Vijay Devarapalli
   Azaire Networks
   4800 Great America Pkwy
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   USA

   Email: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com

Devarapalli               Expires April 7, 2008                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         MIPv6 Experimental Messages          October 2007

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).

Devarapalli               Expires April 7, 2008                 [Page 8]