Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08

On the particular case of shared links: note that they have substantial
scalability and performance issues. In order for shared links to work you
have to engage in DAD proxying, ND snooping, client isolation and all sorts
of unsavoury and L2/L3 magic that does not scale. Some of these issues are
described in RFC 7934 section 9.3. On shared links, these forces act to
reduce the number of IP addresses per host that the network can support and
leads to the negative consequences in section 4 of the document, which is
why they are not recommended.

For these and other reasons, on many public networks we're seeing a shift
*away* from shared links - see, for example,
draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
, and the current large deployments of that model in the form of Comcast
community wifi.

For many years 3GPP networks have been providing those benefits by
providing a full /64 to every host. I would hate to lose those benefits.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Peter McCann <Peter.McCann@huawei.com>
wrote:

> With a fixed access network the prefix can be assigned to the link and
> used by anyone who joins the link.
>
>
>
> With a prefix offering mobility the prefix belongs to the mobile host and
> needs to move with it.  There aren’t enough prefixes (even in IPv6) to
> assign a permanent prefix to each UE for every topological attachment point
> that it might visit or start a session from.
>
>
>
> -Pete
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 02, 2016 3:09 PM
> *To:* Peter McCann <Peter.McCann@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>;
> draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08
>
>
>
> But you have that problem with IP addresses as well, right? I don't see
> how "assigning a prefix with certain properties" requires more state in the
> network than "assigning an IP address with certain properties".
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Peter McCann <Peter.McCann@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Providing any kind of mobility service for a prefix will require some
> state somewhere in the network.  It would be great to avoid an allocation
> request / response for the prefix, but the state has to be created somehow
> before the UE can use the prefix and it has to be reclaimed eventually
> after the UE stops using the prefix (which may not be until well after it
> disconnects from the current link and moves to another one).
>
>
>
> Would welcome any suggestions on how to manage this state.
>
>
>
> -Pete
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Lorenzo Colitti
> *Sent:* Friday, December 02, 2016 12:04 PM
> *To:* jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I like the goal of reducing network cost by allowing the use of IP
> addresses that do not require network mobility, but we should not be doing
> this by requesting IP addresses from the network, because this violates
> IPv6 address assignment best practices.
>
>
>
> Specifically, RFC 7934 recommends that a) the network should provide
> multiple addresses from each prefix and b) the network should allow the
> host to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests to the
> network. This is in conflict with at least this text in the draft, which
> says:
>
>
>
>    In case an application
>
>    requests one, the IP stack shall make an attempt to configure one by
>
>    issuing a request to the network.  If the operation fails, the IP
>
>    stack shall fail the associated socket request
>
>
>
> One way to resolve this conflict would be to say that the network must not
> assign individual addresses, but /64 (or shorter) prefixes. So if the
> device desires to use fixed IPv6 addresses, then the network should give
> the host a fixed IPv6 prefix from which the host can form as many addresses
> as it wants.
>
>
>
> I do not think we should advance this document until the conflicts are
> resolved. This document is about IPv6 address assignment to mobile nodes,
> and we should not publish a document about IPv6 address assignment that
> conflicts with best current practices on IPv6 address assignment.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> The authors of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07
> and draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source have come up with a merged
> document draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08.
>
>
>
> This email starts a 2 week WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08.
>
> The WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16.
>
>
>
> Provide your comments, concerns and approvals to the email list (and
> hopefully also to IssueTracker).
>
>
>
> - Jouni & Dapeng
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
>
> *Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility*
>
> *Date: *November 28, 2016 at 12:51:34 PM PST
>
> *To: *<draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility@ietf.org>, <dmm-chairs@ietf.org>,
> <max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com>
>
> *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org>
>
> *Resent-To: *jouni.nospam@gmail.com, maxpassion@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility has been changed to
> "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Jouni Korhonen:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility/
>
>
> Comment:
> WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>
>
>
>