Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Gundavelli, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7629 K. Leung
Category: Experimental Cisco
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Tsirtsis
Qualcomm
A. Petrescu
CEA, LIST
August 2015
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Gundavelli, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7629 K. Leung
Category: Experimental Cisco
ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Tsirtsis
Qualcomm
A. Petrescu
CEA, LIST
August 2015
Flow-Binding Support for Mobile IP
对移动IP的流绑定支持
Abstract
摘要
This specification defines extensions to the Mobile IP protocol for allowing a mobile node with multiple interfaces to register a care-of address for each of its network interfaces and to simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with its home agent. This essentially allows the mobile node to utilize all the available network interfaces and build a higher aggregated logical pipe with its home agent for its home address traffic. Furthermore, these extensions also allow the mobile node and the home agent to negotiate IP traffic flow policies for binding individual flows with the registered care-of addresses.
本规范定义了移动IP协议的扩展，以允许具有多个接口的移动节点为其每个网络接口注册转交地址，并同时与其归属代理建立多个IP隧道。这本质上允许移动节点利用所有可用的网络接口，并使用其归属代理为其归属地址流量构建更高的聚合逻辑管道。此外，这些扩展还允许移动节点和归属代理协商IP业务流策略，以将各个流与注册的转交地址绑定。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为检查、实验实施和评估而发布的。
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文档为互联网社区定义了一个实验协议。本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7629.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7629.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2015 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Multipath Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Flow-Binding Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. New Error Codes for Registration Reply . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Multipath Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Flow-Binding Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. New Error Codes for Registration Reply . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Mobile Node Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Home Agent Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
With the ubiquitous availability of wireless networks based on different access technology types, mobile devices are now equipped with multiple wireless interfaces and have the ability to connect to the network using any of those interfaces. For example, most mobile devices are equipped with Wi-Fi and LTE (Long Term Evolution) interfaces. In many deployments, it is desirable for a mobile node to leverage all the available network interfaces and have IP mobility support for its IP flows.
随着基于不同接入技术类型的无线网络的普遍可用性，移动设备现在配备了多个无线接口，并且能够使用这些接口中的任何一个连接到网络。例如，大多数移动设备都配备了Wi-Fi和LTE（长期演进）接口。在许多部署中，移动节点需要利用所有可用的网络接口，并为其IP流提供IP移动性支持。
The operation defined in the Mobile IP protocol [RFC5944] allows a mobile node to continue to use its home address as it moves around the Internet. Based on the mode of operation, there will be an IP tunnel that will be established between the home agent and the mobile node or between the home agent and the foreign agent where the mobile node is attached; see [RFC5944]. In both of these modes, there will only be one interface on the mobile node that is receiving the IP traffic from the home agent. This approach of using a single access interface for routing all mobile node's traffic is not efficient and so there is a need to extend Mobile IP to concurrently use multiple access interfaces for routing the mobile node's IP traffic. The goal is for efficient use of all the available access links to obtain higher aggregated bandwidth for the tunneled traffic between the home agent and the mobile node.
移动IP协议[RFC5944]中定义的操作允许移动节点在互联网上移动时继续使用其家庭地址。基于操作模式，将在归属代理和移动节点之间或归属代理和移动节点所连接的外部代理之间建立IP隧道；参见[RFC5944]。在这两种模式中，移动节点上只有一个接口从归属代理接收IP流量。这种使用单一接入接口路由所有移动节点流量的方法效率不高，因此需要扩展移动IP以同时使用多个接入接口路由移动节点的IP流量。目标是有效地使用所有可用的接入链路，以获得归属代理和移动节点之间的隧道流量的更高聚合带宽。
This specification defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 protocol for allowing a mobile node with multiple interfaces to register a care-of address for each of its network interfaces and to simultaneously leverage all access links for the mobile node's IP traffic. Furthermore, this specification also defines extensions to allow the mobile node and the home agent to optionally negotiate IP flow policies for binding individual IP flows with the registered care-of addresses.
本规范定义了对移动IPv4协议的扩展，以允许具有多个接口的移动节点为其每个网络接口注册转交地址，并同时利用移动节点IP流量的所有访问链路。此外，该规范还定义了扩展，以允许移动节点和归属代理选择性地协商IP流策略，以将各个IP流与注册的转交地址绑定。
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
All the mobility-related terms used in this document are to be interpreted as defined in [RFC5944] and [RFC3753]. In addition, this document uses the following terms.
本文件中使用的所有移动性相关术语应按照[RFC5944]和[RFC3753]中的定义进行解释。此外，本文件使用以下术语。
Binding Identifier (BID)
绑定标识符（BID）
It is an identifier assigned to a mobile node's binding. A binding defines an association between a mobile node's home address and its registered care-of address. When a mobile node registers multiple bindings with its home agent, each using a different care-of address, then each of those bindings are given a unique identifier. Each of the binding identifiers will have a unique value that will be different from the identifiers assigned to the mobile node's other bindings.
它是分配给移动节点绑定的标识符。绑定定义移动节点的家庭地址与其注册的转交地址之间的关联。当移动节点向其归属代理注册多个绑定（每个绑定使用不同的转交地址）时，这些绑定中的每一个都被赋予一个唯一标识符。每个绑定标识符将具有一个唯一的值，该值将不同于分配给移动节点的其他绑定的标识符。
Flow Identifier (FID)
流量标识符（FID）
It is an identifier for a given IP flow, uniquely identified by source address, destination address, protocol type, source port, destination port, Security Parameter Index, and other parameters as identified in [RFC6088]. In the context of this document, the IP flows associated with a mobile node are the IP flows using its home address. For a mobile router, the IP flows also include the IP flows using the mobile network prefix [RFC6626].
它是给定IP流的标识符，由源地址、目标地址、协议类型、源端口、目标端口、安全参数索引和[RFC6088]中标识的其他参数唯一标识。在本文档的上下文中，与移动节点相关联的IP流是使用其家庭地址的IP流。对于移动路由器，IP流还包括使用移动网络前缀[RFC6626]的IP流。
The illustration below in Figure 1 is an example scenario where a mobile node is connected to WLAN, LTE, and CDMA access networks. The mobile node is configured with a home address, HoA_1, and has obtained the following care-of addresses [RFC5944]: CoA_1, from the WLAN network; CoA_2, from the LTE network; and CoA_3, from the CDMA network.
图1中的下图是移动节点连接到WLAN、LTE和CDMA接入网络的示例场景。移动节点配置有归属地址HoA_1，并且已从WLAN网络获得以下转交地址[RFC5944]：CoA_1；CoA_2，来自LTE网络；和CoA_3，来自CDMA网络。
The mobile node using the extensions specified in this document registers all three care-of addresses with its home agent. The mobile node also establishes an IP tunnel with the home agent using each of its IP addresses, which results in three IP tunnels (Tunnel_1, Tunnel_2, and Tunnel_3) between the mobile node and the home agent. Each of the tunnels represents an overlay routing path between the mobile node and the home agent and can be used for forwarding the mobile node's IP traffic.
使用本文档中指定的扩展的移动节点向其归属代理注册所有三个转交地址。移动节点还使用其每个IP地址与归属代理建立IP隧道，从而在移动节点和归属代理之间形成三个IP隧道（隧道1、隧道2和隧道3）。每个隧道表示移动节点和归属代理之间的覆盖路由路径，并且可用于转发移动节点的IP流量。
Furthermore, using the extensions specified in this document, the mobile node and the home agent can negotiate an IP flow policy. The negotiated flow policy allows the mobile node and the home agent to determine the access network path for each of the mobile node's IP flows.
此外，使用本文中指定的扩展，移动节点和归属代理可以协商IP流策略。协商流策略允许移动节点和归属代理确定每个移动节点的IP流的接入网络路径。
Flow_1 (SIP)
|
|Flow_2 (SSH)
| |
| |Flow_3 (HTTP) _----_
| | | CoA_1 _( )_ Tunnel_1
| | | .---=======( Wi-Fi )========\ Flow_1
| | | | (_ _) \
| | | | '----' \
| | | +=====+ _----_ \ +=====+ _----_
| | '-| | CoA_2 _( )_ Tunnel_2 \ | | _( )_ --
| '---| MN |---====( LTE )=========-----| HA |-( Internet )--
'-----| | (_ _) Flow_3 / | | (_ _) --
+=====+ '----' / +=====+ '----'
| | _----_ /
HoA_1--' | CoA_3 _( )_ Tunnel_3 /
.------====( CDMA )========/ Flow_2
(_ _)
'----'
Flow_1 (SIP)
|
|Flow_2 (SSH)
| |
| |Flow_3 (HTTP) _----_
| | | CoA_1 _( )_ Tunnel_1
| | | .---=======( Wi-Fi )========\ Flow_1
| | | | (_ _) \
| | | | '----' \
| | | +=====+ _----_ \ +=====+ _----_
| | '-| | CoA_2 _( )_ Tunnel_2 \ | | _( )_ --
| '---| MN |---====( LTE )=========-----| HA |-( Internet )--
'-----| | (_ _) Flow_3 / | | (_ _) --
+=====+ '----' / +=====+ '----'
| | _----_ /
HoA_1--' | CoA_3 _( )_ Tunnel_3 /
.------====( CDMA )========/ Flow_2
(_ _)
'----'
Figure 1: Mobile Node (MN) with Multiple Tunnels to the Home Agent (HA)
图1：具有到归属代理（HA）的多个隧道的移动节点（MN）
The table below is an example of how the individual flows are bound to different care-of addresses registered with the home agent.
下表是如何将各个流绑定到向归属代理注册的不同转交地址的示例。
+=========+===================+=====================================+
| Flow ID | Access Network | Description |
| (FID) | Preferences | |
+=========+===================+=====================================+
| Flow_1 | Tunnel_1 / CoA_1 | All SIP flows over Wi-Fi (Preferred)|
| | Tunnel_2 / CoA_2 | If Wi-Fi is not available, use LTE |
| | <DROP> | If Wi-Fi and LTE access networks are|
| | | not available, drop the flow |
+---------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Flow_3 | Tunnel_2 / CoA_2 | All HTTP flows over LTE (Preferred) |
| | <DROP> | If LTE not available, drop the flow |
+---------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Flow_2 | Tunnel_3 / CoA_3 | All SSH flows over CDMA (Preferred) |
| | Tunnel_2 / CoA_2 | If CDMA not available, use LTE |
| | Tunnel_1 / CoA_1 | If LTE not available, use Wi-Fi |
+---------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
+=========+===================+=====================================+
| Flow ID | Access Network | Description |
| (FID) | Preferences | |
+=========+===================+=====================================+
| Flow_1 | Tunnel_1 / CoA_1 | All SIP flows over Wi-Fi (Preferred)|
| | Tunnel_2 / CoA_2 | If Wi-Fi is not available, use LTE |
| | <DROP> | If Wi-Fi and LTE access networks are|
| | | not available, drop the flow |
+---------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Flow_3 | Tunnel_2 / CoA_2 | All HTTP flows over LTE (Preferred) |
| | <DROP> | If LTE not available, drop the flow |
+---------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Flow_2 | Tunnel_3 / CoA_3 | All SSH flows over CDMA (Preferred) |
| | Tunnel_2 / CoA_2 | If CDMA not available, use LTE |
| | Tunnel_1 / CoA_1 | If LTE not available, use Wi-Fi |
+---------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Example of an IP Traffic Policy
图2:IP流量策略示例
Figure 3 is the call flow for the example scenario where a mobile node is connected to WLAN and LTE access networks.
图3是移动节点连接到WLAN和LTE接入网络的示例场景的呼叫流。
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| MN | | WLAN | | LTE | | HA |
| | |Network| |Network| | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| MN | | WLAN | | LTE | | HA |
| | |Network| |Network| | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | |
* MIP RRQ is sent using the IP address obtained from the WLAN Network
* 使用从WLAN网络获得的IP地址发送MIP RRQ
|<--- (1) --------->| | |
| | RRQ (Multipath, Flow-Binding) |
|---- (2) ----------------------------------------------->|
| | RRP | |
|<--- (3) ------------------------------------------------|
| MIP Tunnel through WLAN Network |
|=====(4)===========*=====================================|
|<--- (1) --------->| | |
| | RRQ (Multipath, Flow-Binding) |
|---- (2) ----------------------------------------------->|
| | RRP | |
|<--- (3) ------------------------------------------------|
| MIP Tunnel through WLAN Network |
|=====(4)===========*=====================================|
* MIP RRQ is sent using the IP address obtained from the LTE Network
* 使用从LTE网络获得的IP地址发送MIP RRQ
|<--- (5) ---------------------------->| |
| | RRQ (Multipath, Flow-Binding) |
|---- (6) ----------------------------------------------->|
| | RRP | |
|<--- (7) ------------------------------------------------|
| MIP Tunnel through LTE Access Network |
|=====(8)==============================*==================|
| |
* *
(Policy-based Routing Rule) (Policy-based Routing Rule)
|<--- (5) ---------------------------->| |
| | RRQ (Multipath, Flow-Binding) |
|---- (6) ----------------------------------------------->|
| | RRP | |
|<--- (7) ------------------------------------------------|
| MIP Tunnel through LTE Access Network |
|=====(8)==============================*==================|
| |
* *
(Policy-based Routing Rule) (Policy-based Routing Rule)
Figure 3: Multipath Negotiation - Example Call Flow
图3：多路径协商-示例调用流
o (1): The mobile node attaches to the WLAN network and obtains the IP address configuration for its WLAN interface.
o （1） ：移动节点连接到WLAN网络并获取其WLAN接口的IP地址配置。
o (2)-(3): The mobile node sends a Registration Request (RRQ) [RFC5944] to the home agent through the WLAN network. The message includes the Multipath (Section 4.1) and the Flow-Binding (Section 4.2) Extensions. The home agent, upon accepting the request, sends a Registration Reply (RRP) [RFC5944] with a value of (0) in the Code field of the Registration Reply.
o （2） -（3）：移动节点通过WLAN网络向归属代理发送注册请求（RRQ）[RFC5944]。该消息包括多路径（第4.1节）和流绑定（第4.2节）扩展。归属代理在接受请求时，在注册回复的代码字段中发送值为（0）的注册回复（RRP）[RFC5944]。
o (4): The mobile node and the home agent establish a bidirectional IP tunnel over the WLAN network.
o （4） ：移动节点和归属代理通过WLAN网络建立双向IP隧道。
o (5): The mobile node attaches to the LTE network and obtains the IP address configuration from that network.
o （5） ：移动节点连接到LTE网络并从该网络获取IP地址配置。
o (6)-(7): The mobile node sends a Registration Request to the home agent through the LTE network. The message includes the Multipath and the Flow-Binding Extensions. The Flow-Binding Extension indicates that all HTTP flows need to be routed over the WLAN network and if the WLAN access network is not available, they need be routed over other access networks. The negotiated policy also requires all voice-related traffic flows to be routed over the LTE network. The home agent, upon accepting the request, sends a Registration Reply with a value of (0) in the Code field of the Registration Reply.
o （6） -（7）：移动节点通过LTE网络向归属代理发送注册请求。该消息包括多路径和流绑定扩展。流绑定扩展指示所有HTTP流都需要通过WLAN网络路由，如果WLAN接入网络不可用，则需要通过其他接入网络路由。协商策略还要求所有与语音相关的业务流通过LTE网络路由。归属代理在接受请求后，在注册回复的代码字段中发送一个值为（0）的注册回复。
o (8): The mobile node and the home agent establish a bidirectional IP tunnel over the LTE network. The negotiated traffic flow policy is applied. Both the home agent and the mobile node route all the voice flows over the tunnel established through the LTE access network and the HTTP flows over the WLAN network.
o （8） ：移动节点和归属代理在LTE网络上建立双向IP隧道。采用协商交通流策略。归属代理和移动节点都通过通过LTE接入网络建立的隧道路由所有语音流，并通过WLAN网络路由HTTP流。
This specification defines the following new extensions to Mobile IP.
本规范定义了以下移动IP的新扩展。
This extension is used for requesting multipath support. It indicates that the sender is requesting the home agent to register the current care-of address listed in this Registration Request as one of the many care-of addresses through which the mobile node can be reached. It is also for carrying the information specific to the interface to which the care-of address that is being registered is bound.
此扩展用于请求多路径支持。它表示发送方正在请求归属代理将此注册请求中列出的当前转交地址注册为可以到达移动节点的众多转交地址之一。它还用于承载特定于接口的信息，该接口将注册的转交地址绑定到该接口。
This extension is a non-skippable extension and MAY be added by the mobile node to the Registration Request message. There MUST NOT be more than one instance of this extension present in the message. This extension MUST NOT be added by the home agent to the Registration Reply.
此扩展是不可跳过的扩展，可由移动节点添加到注册请求消息中。消息中不能存在此扩展的多个实例。本地代理不得将此扩展添加到注册回复中。
This extension should be protected using the Mobile-Home Authentication Extension [RFC5944]. As specified in Sections 3.2 and 3.6.1.3 of [RFC5944], the mobile node MUST place this Extension before the Mobile-Home Authentication Extension in the registration messages so that this extension is integrity protected.
应使用移动家庭身份验证扩展[RFC5944]保护此扩展。如[RFC5944]第3.2节和第3.6.1.3节所述，移动节点必须在注册消息中将此扩展置于移动家庭身份验证扩展之前，以便此扩展受到完整性保护。
The format of this extension is as shown below. It adheres to the long extension format described in [RFC5944].
此扩展的格式如下所示。它遵循[RFC5944]中描述的长扩展格式。
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 | Subtype | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| If-ATT | If-Label | Binding ID |B|O| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | Subtype | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| If-ATT | If-Label | Binding ID |B|O| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Multipath Extension
图4：多路径扩展
Type
类型
Type: Multipath-Extension-Type (154)
类型：多路径扩展类型（154）
Subtype
亚型
This field MUST be set to a value of 1 (Multipath Extension).
此字段必须设置为值1（多路径扩展）。
Length
长
The length of the extension in octets, excluding Type, Subtype, and Length fields. This field MUST be set to a value of 4.
扩展名的长度（以八位字节为单位），不包括类型、子类型和长度字段。此字段的值必须设置为4。
Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)
接口访问技术类型（如果ATT）
This 8-bit field identifies the Access Technology type of the interface through which the mobile node is connected. The permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type registry defined in [RFC5213].
此8位字段标识移动节点通过其连接的接口的接入技术类型。允许的值来自[RFC5213]中定义的访问技术类型注册表。
Interface Label (If-Label)
接口标签（如果是标签）
This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an unsigned integer. The mobile node identifies the label for each of the interfaces through which it registers a CoA with the home agent. When using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the home agent, the label can be used for indexing forwarding policies. For example, the operator may have a policy that binds an IP flow "F1" to any interface with the label "Blue". When a registration through an interface matching the label "Blue" gets activated, the home agent and the mobile node establish an IP tunnel and the tunnel is marked with that label. Both the home agent and the mobile node generate traffic rules for forwarding IP flow traffic "F1" through the mobile IP tunnel matching the label "Blue". The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through 255.
此8位字段表示以无符号整数表示的接口标签。移动节点识别每个接口的标签，通过该标签向归属代理注册CoA。在移动节点和归属代理上使用静态流量策略时，标签可用于索引转发策略。例如，运营商可能有一个策略，将IP流“F1”绑定到标签为“蓝色”的任何接口。当通过与标签“蓝色”匹配的接口进行的注册被激活时，归属代理和移动节点建立一个IP隧道，并且该隧道用该标签标记。归属代理和移动节点都生成流量规则，用于通过与标签“蓝色”匹配的移动IP隧道转发IP流流量“F1”。If标签的允许值为1到255。
Binding Identifier (BID)
绑定标识符（BID）
This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node associated with this Registration Request. Each binding identifier is represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved.
此8位字段用于承载绑定标识符。它唯一标识与此注册请求关联的移动节点的特定绑定。每个绑定标识符都表示为一个无符号整数。允许值为1到254。保留0和255的投标值。
Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
批量重新注册标志（B）
The (B) flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the home agent to update the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings upon accepting this request. The (B) flag MUST NOT be set to a value of (1) if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) flag is set to a value of (1).
如果将（B）标志设置为值（1），则通知归属代理在接受此请求时更新所有移动节点绑定的绑定生存期。如果注册覆盖标志（O）的值设置为（1），则（B）标志不得设置为（1）的值。
Registration Overwrite (O)
注册覆盖（O）
The (O) flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the home agent that upon accepting this request it should replace all of the mobile node's existing bindings with the new binding that will be created upon accepting this request. The (O) flag MUST NOT be set to a value of (1) if the value of the Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be set to a value of (0) in De-Registration requests.
（O）标志如果设置为（1）的值，则通知归属代理在接受此请求时，它应将所有移动节点的现有绑定替换为接受此请求时将创建的新绑定。如果批量重新注册标志（B）的值设置为（1），则（O）标志不得设置为（1）的值。在注销请求中，此标志必须设置为（0）值。
Reserved (R)
保留（R）
This 6-bit field is unused for now. The value MUST be initialized to (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
此6位字段目前未使用。发送方必须将该值初始化为（0），接收方必须忽略该值。
This extension contains information that can be used by the mobile node and the home agent for binding mobile node's IP flows to a specific multipath registration. There can be more than one instance of this extension present in the message.
此扩展包含移动节点和归属代理可用于将移动节点的IP流绑定到特定多路径注册的信息。消息中可能存在此扩展的多个实例。
This extension is a non-skippable extension and MAY be added to the Registration Request by the mobile node or by the home agent to the Registration Reply.
此扩展是不可跳过的扩展，可由移动节点或归属代理将其添加到注册请求中，以添加到注册回复中。
This extension should be protected by Mobile-Home Authentication Extension [RFC5944]. As specified in Section 3.2 and 3.6.1.3 of [RFC5944], the mobile node MUST place this extension before the Mobile-Home Authentication Extension in the registration messages so that this extension is integrity protected.
此扩展应受到移动家庭身份验证扩展[RFC5944]的保护。如[RFC5944]第3.2节和第3.6.1.3节所述，移动节点必须在注册消息中将此扩展置于移动家庭身份验证扩展之前，以便此扩展受到完整性保护。
The format of this extension is as shown below. It adheres to the long extension format described in [RFC5944].
此扩展的格式如下所示。它遵循[RFC5944]中描述的长扩展格式。
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 | Subtype | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | BID Count | ... BID List ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS Format | Traffic Selector ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | Subtype | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | BID Count | ... BID List ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TS Format | Traffic Selector ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Flow-Binding Extension
图5：流绑定扩展
Type
类型
Type: Multipath-Extension-Type (154)
类型：多路径扩展类型（154）
Subtype
亚型
This field MUST be set to a value of 2 (Flow-Binding Extension).
此字段必须设置为值2（流绑定扩展名）。
Length
长
The length of the extension in octets, excluding Type, Subtype, and Length fields.
扩展名的长度（以八位字节为单位），不包括类型、子类型和长度字段。
Action
行动
The Action field identifies the traffic rule that needs to be enforced. Following are the possible values.
操作字段标识需要强制执行的流量规则。以下是可能的值。
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Action | Value | Description |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| DROP | 0 | Drop matching packets. A filter rule |
| | | indicating a drop action MUST include a single |
| | | BID byte, the value of which MAY be set to 255 |
| | | by the sender and the value of which SHOULD be |
| | | ignored by the receiver. |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| FORWARD | 1 | Forward matching packets to the first BID in the|
| | | list of BIDs the filter rule is pointing to. |
| | | If the first BID becomes invalid (i.e., the |
| | | corresponding CoA is de-registered), use the |
| | | next BID in the list. |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Action | Value | Description |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| DROP | 0 | Drop matching packets. A filter rule |
| | | indicating a drop action MUST include a single |
| | | BID byte, the value of which MAY be set to 255 |
| | | by the sender and the value of which SHOULD be |
| | | ignored by the receiver. |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
| FORWARD | 1 | Forward matching packets to the first BID in the|
| | | list of BIDs the filter rule is pointing to. |
| | | If the first BID becomes invalid (i.e., the |
| | | corresponding CoA is de-registered), use the |
| | | next BID in the list. |
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Action Rules for the Traffic Selector
图6：流量选择器的操作规则
BID Count
投标计数
Total number of binding identifiers that follow this field. The permitted values for this field are 1 through 8; each binding identifier is represented as an unsigned integer in a single octet field. There is no delimiter between two binding identifier values; they are spaced consecutively.
此字段后面的绑定标识符总数。该字段的允许值为1到8；每个绑定标识符在单个八位字节字段中表示为一个无符号整数。两个绑定标识符值之间没有分隔符；它们是连续间隔的。
TS Format
TS格式
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic Selector (TS) Format. The value (0) is reserved and MUST NOT be used. When the value of the TS Format field is set to (1), the format that follows is the IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector specified in Section 3.1 of [RFC6088], and when the value of the TS Format field is set to (2), the format that follows is the IPv6 Binary Traffic Selector specified in Section 3.2 of [RFC6088]. The IPv6 traffic selectors are only relevant when the mobile node registers IPv6 prefixes per [RFC5454].
表示流量选择器（TS）格式的8位无符号整数。值（0）是保留的，不能使用。当TS格式字段的值设置为（1）时，随后的格式为[RFC6088]第3.1节中指定的IPv4二进制流量选择器，当TS格式字段的值设置为（2）时，随后的格式为[RFC6088]第3.2节中指定的IPv6二进制流量选择器。IPv6流量选择器仅在移动节点根据[RFC5454]注册IPv6前缀时才相关。
Traffic Selector
交通选择器
A variable-length opaque field for including the traffic specification identified by the TS Format field. It identifies the traffic selectors for matching the IP traffic and binding them to specific binding identifiers.
可变长度不透明字段，用于包括TS格式字段标识的流量规范。它标识用于匹配IP流量并将其绑定到特定绑定标识符的流量选择器。
This document defines the following error code values for use by the home agent in the Code field of the Registration Reply.
本文档定义了以下错误代码值，以供注册回复的代码字段中的归属代理使用。
MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED (Multipath Support not allowed for this mobile node): 152
不允许多路径（此移动节点不允许多路径支持）：152
INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER (Invalid Flow-Binding Identifier): 153
无效的\u FB\u标识符（无效的流绑定标识符）：153
o The mobile node should register a care-of address for each of the connected interfaces that it wishes to register with the home agent. It can do so by sending a Registration Request to the home agent through each of those interfaces.
o 移动节点应为其希望向归属代理注册的每个连接接口注册转交地址。它可以通过每个接口向归属代理发送注册请求来实现这一点。
o Each of the Registration Requests that is sent includes the care-of address of the respective interface. The Registration Request has to be routed through the specific interface for which the registration is sought for. Some of these interfaces may be connected to networks with a configured foreign agent on the link, and in such foreign-agent-based registrations, the care-of address will be the IP address of the foreign agent.
o 发送的每个注册请求包括相应接口的转交地址。注册请求必须通过寻求注册的特定接口进行路由。这些接口中的一些可以通过链路上配置的外部代理连接到网络，并且在这种基于外部代理的注册中，转交地址将是外部代理的IP地址。
o A Multipath Extension (Section 4.1) reflecting the interface parameters is present in each of the Registration Requests. This serves as an indication to the home agent that the Registration Request is a Multipath registration and the home agent will have to register this care-of address as one of the many care-of addresses through which the mobile node's home address is reachable.
o 每个注册请求中都存在反映接口参数的多路径扩展（第4.1节）。这用作向归属代理指示注册请求是多路径注册，并且归属代理必须将该转交地址注册为可通过其访问移动节点的归属地址的众多转交地址之一。
o If the mobile node is configured to exchange IP flow policy to the home agent, then the Flow-Binding Extension (Section 4.2) reflecting the flow policy can be included in the message. Otherwise, the Flow-Binding Extension will not be included.
o 如果移动节点被配置为与归属代理交换IP流策略，则消息中可以包括反映流策略的流绑定扩展（第4.2节）。否则，将不包括流绑定扩展。
o The mobile node, upon receiving a Registration Reply with the Code value set to MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED, MAY choose to register without the Multipath Extension specified in this document. This implies the home agent has not enabled multipath support for this mobile node and hence multipath support MUST be disabled on the mobile node.
o 移动节点在收到代码值设置为MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED的注册回复后，可以选择在没有本文档中指定的多路径扩展的情况下注册。这意味着归属代理尚未为此移动节点启用多路径支持，因此必须在移动节点上禁用多路径支持。
o The mobile node, upon receiving a Registration Reply with the Code value set to INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER, MUST re-register that specific binding with the home agent.
o 移动节点在收到代码值设置为无效\u FB\u标识符的注册回复后，必须向归属代理重新注册该特定绑定。
o The mobile node at any time can extend the lifetime of a specific care-of address registration by sending a Registration Request to the home agent with a new lifetime value. The message MUST be sent as the initial multipath registration and must be routed through that specific interface. The message MUST include the Multipath Extension (Section 4.1) with the value in the Binding ID field set to the binding identifier assigned to that binding. Alternatively, the home agent can send a single Registration Request with the Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) set to a value of (1). This serves as a request to the home agent to update the registration lifetime of all the mobile node's registrations.
o 移动节点在任何时候都可以通过向归属代理发送具有新生存期值的注册请求来延长特定转交地址注册的生存期。消息必须作为初始多路径注册发送，并且必须通过该特定接口路由。消息必须包括多路径扩展（第4.1节），绑定ID字段中的值必须设置为分配给该绑定的绑定标识符。或者，归属代理可以发送将批量重新注册标志（B）设置为值（1）的单个注册请求。这用作对归属代理的请求，以更新所有移动节点的注册的注册生存期。
o The mobile node can, at any time, de-register a specific care-of address by sending a Registration Request to the home agent with a lifetime value of (0). The message must include the Multipath Extension (Section 4.1) with the value in the Binding ID field set to the binding identifier assigned to that binding. Alternatively, the home agent can send a single Registration Request with the Bulk Re-registration Flag (B) set to a value of (1) and a lifetime value of (0). This serves as a request to the home agent to consider this request as a request to de-register all the mobile node's care-of addresses.
o 移动节点可以在任何时候通过向归属代理发送具有生存期值（0）的注册请求来取消特定转交地址的注册。消息必须包括多路径扩展（第4.1节），绑定ID字段中的值必须设置为分配给该绑定的绑定标识符。或者，归属代理可以发送单个注册请求，其中批量重新注册标志（B）设置为值（1）和生存期值（0）。这是对归属代理的请求，将此请求视为对所有移动节点的地址的登记进行注销的请求。
o The mobile node can, at any time, update the parameters of a specific registration by sending a Registration Request to the home agent. This includes a change of care-of address associated with a previously registered interface. The message must be sent as the initial multipath registration and must be routed through that specific interface. The message must include the Multipath Extension (Section 4.1) with the value in the Binding ID field set to the binding identifier assigned to that binding, and the Overwrite Flag (O) flag MUST be set to a value of (1).
o 移动节点可以随时通过向归属代理发送注册请求来更新特定注册的参数。这包括更改与以前注册的接口相关联的转交地址。消息必须作为初始多路径注册发送，并且必须通过该特定接口路由。消息必须包括多路径扩展（第4.1节），绑定ID字段中的值必须设置为分配给该绑定的绑定标识符，并且覆盖标志（O）必须设置为值（1）。
o The mobile node, upon receiving a Registration Reply with the Code value set to 0 (registration accepted), will establish a Mobile IP tunnel to the home agent using that care-of address. When using a foreign agent care-of address, the tunnel is between the home agent and the foreign agent. The tunnel encapsulation type and any other parameters are based on the registration for that path. If there is also an exchange of flow policy between the mobile node and the home agent, with the use of Flow-Binding Extensions, then the mobile node must set up the forwarding plane that matches the flow policy.
o 移动节点在接收到代码值设置为0（接受注册）的注册回复时，将使用该转交地址建立到归属代理的移动IP隧道。使用外国代理转交地址时，隧道位于本国代理和外国代理之间。隧道封装类型和任何其他参数基于该路径的注册。如果移动节点和归属代理之间还存在流策略交换，并且使用流绑定扩展，则移动节点必须设置与流策略匹配的转发平面。
The home agent, upon receiving a Registration Request from a mobile node with a Multipath Extension, should check if the mobile node is authorized for multipath support. If multipath support is not enabled, the home agent MUST reject the request with a Registration Reply and with the Code set to MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED.
归属代理在接收到来自具有多路径扩展的移动节点的注册请求时，应检查移动节点是否被授权支持多路径。如果未启用多路径支持，则归属代理必须使用注册回复拒绝请求，并且代码设置为“不允许多路径”。
If the received Registration Request includes a Multipath Extension and additionally has the Bulk Re-registration (B) flag set to a value of (1), then the home agent MUST extend the lifetime of all the bindings associated with that mobile node.
如果接收到的注册请求包括多路径扩展，并且另外将批量重新注册（B）标志设置为值（1），则归属代理必须延长与该移动节点相关联的所有绑定的生存期。
The home agent, upon receipt of a Registration Request with the Flow-Binding Extension, must process the extension and, upon accepting the flow policy, must set up the forwarding plane that matches the flow policy. If the home agent cannot identify any of the binding identifiers, then it MUST reject the request with a Registration Reply and with the Code set to INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER.
在收到流绑定扩展的注册请求后，归属代理必须处理扩展，并且在接受流策略时，必须设置与流策略匹配的转发平面。如果归属代理无法识别任何绑定标识符，则必须使用注册回复拒绝请求，并将代码设置为无效的\u FB\u标识符。
If the received Registration Request includes a Multipath Extension and additionally has the Registration Overwrite (O) flag set to a value of (1), then the home agent MUST consider this as a request to replace all other mobile node's bindings with just one binding and that is the binding associated with this request.
如果接收到的注册请求包括多径扩展，并且还将注册覆盖（O）标志设置为（1）的值，那么归属代理必须考虑这是一个请求，用一个绑定来替换所有其他移动节点的绑定，也就是与该请求相关联的绑定。
When multipath registration is enabled for a mobility node, there will be multiple Mobile IP tunnels established between a mobile node and its home agent. These Mobile IP tunnels appear to the forwarding plane of the mobile node as equal-cost, point-to-point links.
当为移动节点启用多路径注册时，将在移动节点及其归属代理之间建立多个移动IP隧道。这些移动IP隧道在移动节点的转发平面上显示为同等成本的点到点链路。
If there is also an exchange of traffic flow policy between the mobile node and the home agent, with the use of Flow-Binding Extensions (Section 4.2), then the mobile node's IP traffic can be routed by the mobility entities as per the negotiated flow policy. However, if multipath is enabled for a mobility session without the use of any flow policy exchange, then both the mobile node and the home agent are required to have a pre-configured static flow policy. The specific details on the semantics of this static flow policy are outside the scope of this document.
如果通过使用流绑定扩展（第4.2节），移动节点和归属代理之间也存在业务流策略的交换，则移动节点的IP业务可以由移动实体根据协商的流策略进行路由。然而，如果在不使用任何流策略交换的情况下为移动会话启用多路径，则移动节点和归属代理都需要具有预配置的静态流策略。此静态流策略语义的具体细节不在本文档的范围内。
In the absence of any established traffic flow policies, most IP hosts support two alternative traffic load-balancing schemes, per-flow and per-packet load balancing [RFC2991]. These load-balancing schemes allow the forwarding plane to evenly distribute traffic on either a per-packet or per-flow basis, across all the available
在没有任何既定的流量策略的情况下，大多数IP主机支持两种可选的流量负载平衡方案，即每流和每包负载平衡[RFC2991]。这些负载平衡方案允许转发平面在每个包或每个流的基础上，在所有可用网络上均匀地分配流量
equal-cost links through which a destination can be reached. The default forwarding behavior of per-flow load balancing will ensure a given flow always takes the same path and will eliminate any packet re-ordering issues, and that is critical for delay-sensitive traffic, whereas the per-destination load-balancing scheme leverages all the paths much more effectively but with the potential issue of packet re-ordering on the receiver end. This issue will be specially magnified when the access links have very different forwarding characteristics. A host can choose to enable any of these approaches. Therefore, this specification recommends the use of per-flow load balancing.
等成本链接，通过它可以到达目的地。每个流负载平衡的默认转发行为将确保给定流始终采用相同的路径，并将消除任何数据包重新排序问题，这对于延迟敏感的流量至关重要，然而，每个目的地的负载平衡方案更有效地利用了所有路径，但在接收端存在数据包重新排序的潜在问题。当接入链路具有非常不同的转发特性时，这个问题将被特别放大。主机可以选择启用这些方法中的任何一种。因此，本规范建议使用逐流负载平衡。
Per this document, the following IANA actions have been completed.
根据本文件，已完成以下IANA行动。
o Action 1: This specification defines two new Mobile IP extensions, the Multipath Extension and the Flow-Binding Extension. The format of the Multipath Extension is described in Section 4.1, and the format of the Flow-Binding Extension is described in Section 4.2. Both of these extensions are non-skippable extensions to the Mobile IPv4 header in accordance to the long extension format of [RFC5944]. Both of these extensions use a common Type value, Multipath-Extension (154), but are identified using different Subtype values. The Type value 154 for these extensions has been allocated from the "Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages" registry at the URL <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers>. The field "Permitted for Notification Messages" for this extension MUST be set to "N".
o 措施1：本规范定义了两个新的移动IP扩展，多路径扩展和流绑定扩展。第4.1节描述了多路径扩展的格式，第4.2节描述了流绑定扩展的格式。根据[RFC5944]的长扩展格式，这两个扩展都是对移动IPv4报头的不可跳过扩展。这两个扩展都使用一个公共类型值，即Multipath Extension（154），但使用不同的子类型值来标识。这些扩展的类型值154已从URL处的“移动IP注册消息扩展”注册表中分配<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers>. 此扩展的“允许通知消息”字段必须设置为“N”。
o Action 2: This specification defines a new message subtype space, Multipath Extension subtype. This field is described in Section 4.1. The values for this subtype field are managed by IANA under the "Multipath Extension subtypes (Value 154)" registry. This specification reserves the following Type values. Approvals of new Multipath Extension subtype values are to be made through IANA Expert Review [RFC5226].
o 操作2：此规范定义了一个新的消息子类型空间，即多路径扩展子类型。第4.1节描述了该字段。此子类型字段的值由IANA在“多路径扩展子类型（值154）”注册表下管理。本规范保留以下类型值。新的多路径扩展子类型值的批准将通过IANA专家评审[RFC5226]进行。
+=========================================================+
| 0 | Reserved |
+=========================================================+
| 1 | Multipath Extension |
+=========================================================+
| 2 | Flow-Binding Extension |
+=========================================================+
| | |
~ 3-254 | Unassigned ~
| | |
+=========================================================+
| 255 | Reserved |
+=========================================================+
+=========================================================+
| 0 | Reserved |
+=========================================================+
| 1 | Multipath Extension |
+=========================================================+
| 2 | Flow-Binding Extension |
+=========================================================+
| | |
~ 3-254 | Unassigned ~
| | |
+=========================================================+
| 255 | Reserved |
+=========================================================+
o Action 3: This document defines new status code values, MULTIPATH_NOT_ALLOWED (152) and INVALID_FB_IDENTIFIER (153), for use by the home agent in the Code field of the Registration Reply, as described in Section 4.3. These values have been assigned from the "Registration denied by the home agent" registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers>.
o 措施3：如第4.3节所述，本文件定义了新的状态码值、多路径不允许（152）和无效的识别码（153），以供注册回复的代码字段中的归属代理使用。这些值已从位于的“home agent拒绝注册”注册表中分配<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers>.
This specification allows a mobile node to establish multiple Mobile IP tunnels with its home agent by registering a care-of address for each of its active roaming interfaces. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be routed through any of the tunnel paths based on a static or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this specification defines two new Mobile IP extensions, the Multipath Extension and the Flow-Binding Extension. These extensions are specified to be included in Mobile IP control messages, which are authenticated and integrity protected as described in [RFC5944]. Therefore, this specification does not weaken the security of the Mobile IP protocol and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.
此规范允许移动节点通过为其每个活动漫游接口注册转交地址，与其归属代理建立多个移动IP隧道。这本质上允许移动节点的IP流量基于静态或动态协商的流策略通过任何隧道路径路由。此新功能对协议安全性没有影响。此外，该规范定义了两个新的移动IP扩展，多路径扩展和流绑定扩展。这些扩展指定包含在移动IP控制消息中，这些消息按照[RFC5944]中的说明进行身份验证和完整性保护。因此，本规范不会削弱移动IP协议的安全性，也不会引入任何新的安全漏洞。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5213]Gundavelli，S.，Ed.，Leung，K.，Devarapalli，V.，Chowdhury，K.，和B.Patil，“代理移动IPv6”，RFC 5213，DOI 10.17487/RFC5213，2008年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.
[RFC5944]Perkins，C.，Ed.，“IPv4的IP移动性支持，修订版”，RFC 5944，DOI 10.17487/RFC59442010年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
[RFC6088]Tsirtsis，G.，Giarreta，G.，Soliman，H.，和N.Montavont，“流绑定的流量选择器”，RFC 6088，DOI 10.17487/RFC6088，2011年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
[RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, DOI 10.17487/RFC2991, November 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.
[RFC2991]Thaler，D.和C.Hopps，“单播和多播下一跳选择中的多路径问题”，RFC 2991，DOI 10.17487/RFC2991，2000年11月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.
[RFC3753] Manner, J., Ed. and M. Kojo, Ed., "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC 3753, DOI 10.17487/RFC3753, June 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3753>.
[RFC3753]Way，J.，Ed.和M.Kojo，Ed.，“机动性相关术语”，RFC 3753，DOI 10.17487/RFC3753，2004年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3753>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，DOI 10.17487/RFC5226，2008年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5454] Tsirtsis, G., Park, V., and H. Soliman, "Dual-Stack Mobile IPv4", RFC 5454, DOI 10.17487/RFC5454, March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5454>.
[RFC5454]Tsirtsis，G.，Park，V.和H.Soliman，“双栈移动IPv4”，RFC 5454，DOI 10.17487/RFC54542009年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5454>.
[RFC6626] Tsirtsis, G., Park, V., Narayanan, V., and K. Leung, "Dynamic Prefix Allocation for Network Mobility for Mobile IPv4 (NEMOv4)", RFC 6626, DOI 10.17487/RFC6626, May 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6626>.
[RFC6626]Tsirtsis，G.，Park，V.，Narayanan，V.，和K.Leung，“移动IPv4（NEMOv4）网络移动性的动态前缀分配”，RFC 6626，DOI 10.17487/RFC6626，2012年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6626>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
We would like to thank Qin Wu, Shahriar Rahman, Mohana Jeyatharan, Yungui Wang, Hui Deng Behcet Sarikaya, Jouni Korhonen, Michaela Vanderveen, Antti Makela, Charles Perkins, Pierrick Seite, Vijay Gurbani, Barry Leiba, Henrik Levkowetz, Pete McCann, and Brian Haberman for their review and comments on this document.
我们要感谢秦武、沙里亚尔·拉赫曼、莫哈纳·杰亚塔兰、王云贵、惠登·贝塞特·萨里卡亚、朱尼·科霍宁、迈克尔·范德尔文、安蒂·马克拉、查尔斯·帕金斯、皮埃里克·塞特、维杰·古巴尼、巴里·莱巴、亨里克·列夫科维茨、皮特·麦肯和布赖恩·哈贝曼对本文件的审查和评论。
Contributors
贡献者
This document reflects discussions and contributions from the following people:
本文件反映了以下人员的讨论和贡献：
Ahmad Muhanna Email: asmuhanna@yahoo.com
艾哈迈德·穆哈纳电子邮件：asmuhanna@yahoo.com
Srinivasa Kanduru Email: skanduru@gmail.com
Srinivasa Kanduru电子邮件：skanduru@gmail.com
Vince Park Email: vpark@qualcomm.com
文斯·帕克电子邮件：vpark@qualcomm.com
Hesham Soliman Email: hesham@elevatemobile.com
Hesham Soliman电子邮件：hesham@elevatemobile.com
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Sri Gundavelli (editor) Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 United States
Sri Gundavelli（编辑）思科170西塔斯曼大道圣何塞，加利福尼亚州95134
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Kent Leung Cisco 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 United States
美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞西塔斯曼大道170号，邮编95134
Email: kleung@cisco.com
Email: kleung@cisco.com
George Tsirtsis Qualcomm
George Tsirtsis高通公司
Email: tsirtsis@qualcomm.com
Email: tsirtsis@qualcomm.com
Alexandre Petrescu CEA, LIST CEA Saclay Gif-sur-Yvette , Ile-de-France 91191 France
Alexandre Petrescu CEA，列表CEA Saclay Gif sur Yvette，Ile de France 91191
Phone: +33169089223
Email: alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr
Phone: +33169089223
Email: alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr