Network Working Group                                         M. Bagnulo
Request for Comments: 4581                                          UC3M
Updates: 3972                                                   J. Arkko
Category: Standards Track                                       Ericsson
                                                           October 2006


  Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format

Status of This Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

  This document defines a Type-Length-Value format for
  Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) Extensions.  This document
  updates RFC 3972.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................2
  2. CGA Extension Field Format ......................................2
  3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
  4. Security Considerations .........................................3
  5. Acknowledgements ................................................3
  6. Normative References ............................................3
















Bagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4581               CGA Extension Field Format           October 2006


1.  Introduction

  The Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) specification [1]
  defines Extension Fields that allow additional information to be
  included in the CGA Parameter Data Structure.  So far there seems to
  be enough interest in including additional data items into the CGA
  Parameter Data Structure through these Extension Fields that it seems
  reasonable to expect that more than one mechanism will require its
  usage.  In order to simplify the addition of multiple data items,
  this document updates RFC 3972 [1], and it defines a Type-Length-
  Value format for the Extension Fields.

2.  CGA Extension Field Format

  Data items to be included in Extension Fields of the CGA Parameter
  Data Structure MUST be encoded using the following Type-Length-Value
  (TLV) 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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |         Extension Type        |   Extension Data Length       |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  ~                       Extension Data                          ~
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  Extension Type: 16-bit identifier of the type of the Extension Field.

  Extension Data Length: 16-bit unsigned integer.  Length of the
  Extension Data field of this option, in octets.

  Extension Data: Variable-length field.  Extension-Type-specific data.

3.  IANA Considerations

  The IANA has created and will maintain a registry entitled, "CGA
  Extension Type".  The values in this name space are 16-bit unsigned
  integers.  Initial values for the CGA Extension Type field are given
  below; future assignments are to be made through Standards Action
  [2].  Assignments consist of a name and the value.

  As recommended in [3], this document makes the following assignments
  for experimental and testing use: the value 0xFFFD, with name
  Exp_FFFD; the value 0xFFFE, with name Exp_FFFE, and the value 0xFFFF,
  with name Exp_FFFF.




Bagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4581               CGA Extension Field Format           October 2006


4.  Security Considerations

  No security concerns are raised by the adoption of the CGA Extension
  format described in this document.  However, proper security analysis
  is required when new CGA Extensions are defined in order to make sure
  that they introduce no new vulnerabilities to the existing CGA
  schemes.

5.  Acknowledgements

  Comments to this document were provided by Sam Hartman, Allison
  Mankin, Pekka Savola, Thomas Narten, Tuomas Aura, Stefan Rommer,
  Julien Laganier, and James Kempf.

6.  Normative References

  [1]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC
       3972, March 2005.

  [2]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
       Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

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

Authors' Addresses

  Marcelo Bagnulo
  Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
  Av. Universidad 30
  Leganes, Madrid  28911
  SPAIN

  Phone: 34 91 6249500
  EMail: [email protected]
  URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es


  Jari Arkko
  Ericsson
  Jorvas  02420
  Finland

  EMail: [email protected]







Bagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4581               CGA Extension Field Format           October 2006


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

  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 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
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
  Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Bagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 4]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.rbfh.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.