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

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility@ietf.org>>, <dmm-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:dmm-chairs@ietf.org>>, <max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com>>
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com<mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, maxpassion@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm