1 / 8

Mobile IPv6 Advanced Socket API Extensions

Mobile IPv6 Advanced Socket API Extensions. draft-chakrabarti-mobileip-mipext-advapi-01.txt Samita.Chakrabarti@Sun.com Erik.Nordmark@Sun.com. What is MIPv6 Socket API ?. This document is an extension to the IPv6 Advanced Socket API (RFC 3542)

gareth-sheppard
Download Presentation

Mobile IPv6 Advanced Socket API Extensions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mobile IPv6 Advanced Socket API Extensions draft-chakrabarti-mobileip-mipext-advapi-01.txt Samita.Chakrabarti@Sun.com Erik.Nordmark@Sun.com IETF 57

  2. What is MIPv6 Socket API ? • This document is an extension to the IPv6 Advanced Socket API (RFC 3542) • Contains data structures, definitions and access methods for Mobile IPv6 extensions to IPv6 Protocol header Mobility Header, Home Address Destination Option and Routing Header Type 2 • This API is useful for uniform socket interfaces across Mobile IPv6 implementations • Mobile IPv6 specific debugging, tracing , policy and system level applications can take advantage of this API IETF 57

  3. Update Process • After San Fransisco IETF, mip6api@sun.com alias was formed to discuss the issues in the draft • Mip6api@sun.com contains participants from Connectathon-2003 and other individuals who expressed interest to join the MIPv6 API discussion • Draft v1 submitted before June30th. Darft V2 will be submitted after this IETF. IETF 57

  4. Updated/Resolved Issues • New protocol name for the API Resolved : IPPROTO_MH as protocol number and ipv6-mh in /etc/protocols • A new header file for mobility header related definitions and structures <netinet/ip6mh.h> • What prefix to use for data structures and definitions ? For mobility headers: struct ip6_mh for fixed mobility header ip6mh* for prefix of fields in the data structure • Draft incorporates HA ICMPv6 related definitions and structures (consistent with rfc3542) DHAAD, MPA, MPS and ND changes are incorporated in <netinet/icmp6.h> • Type 2 Routing Header and home address destination option structures are in < netinet/ip6.h> IETF 57

  5. Current Updates • Should the apps be allowed to set Mobile IPv6 headers ? User level ability to add Routing Header Type 2 and/or home address option or mobility headers to IPv6 headers. The API may not disallow this ability; it is up to the implementation to allow this feature. No resolution here – is this assumption OK? • Additional updates Added data structures for Mobility Options Macros have prefix IP6MH in <netinet/ip6mh.h> Defined BU and BA flags IETF 57

  6. Suggested changes for the next revision • Use ip6_mh_* for the structure definitions and ip6mh_* for the respective fields example: struct ip6_mh_home_test_init { struct ip6_mh ip6mhti_hdr; uint16_t ip6mhti_resvd; uint32_t ip6mhti_cookie[2]; /* 64 bit Cookie by MN */ /* Followed by optional Mobility Options */ }; • Should the macros/definitions in icmp6.h for ND and ICMP related changes contain MIP6/mip6 or MIP/mip prefix ? example: mip_dhreq_hdr.icmp6_type vs mip6_dhreq_hdr.icmp6_type MIP_PREFIX_SOLICIT vs MIP6_PREFIX_SOLICIT IETF 57

  7. Suggested changes for the next revision • Should we restrict other options setting when home-address option is set by the application ? • Should Checksumming be default for Mobility Header RAW socket applications ? Issue: RFC3542 RAW Socket behavior specifies that RAW sockets other than ICMPv6 must set IPV6_CHECKSUM for kernel to do the checksum operation– this may lead to backward compatibility issue Other minor issues would be resolved over the mailing list IETF 57

  8. Next Step • Should this draft be a starting point of a working group informational draft as an extension to IPv6 Advanced Socket API? IETF 57

More Related