Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463FB12870E for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:25:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b3JVCQPmT06a for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92439130F20 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:25:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x0GNP9m0027740; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:25:09 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.112]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x0GNOxbo026478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:24:59 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1591.10; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:24:58 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.012; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:24:58 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>, "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11
Thread-Index: AQHUqEsyaVwhC6gsjkGTHCexOaG4/6WyjgZw
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:24:58 +0000
Message-ID: <4e6e476e61a342569edf2c126543c1d5@boeing.com>
References: <D85B80C5.2E3462%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D85B80C5.2E3462%sgundave@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: C3819AFD8BE0FD0B6EF7C67C7B6BD2000C11D98FC2141A172A5362900A731D992000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4e6e476e61a342569edf2c126543c1d5boeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/DQ1Yt7kqw24SslhwqFO8UEgKKTc>
Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:25:16 -0000

Hi, I read this document and it seems to imply that anchors necessarily aggregate
short prefixes. For example, an anchor might aggregate a prefix like 2001:db8::/32
and give out ::/64 prefixes to mobile nodes. This preserves the notion of a home
network that is identified by an aggregated prefix - so the global routing system
can identify the home network by the short prefix.

On the other hand, 'draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp' assumes that there is no such
aggregation, and that the anchor has no short prefix associated with it. Then,
when a mobile associates with an anchor the anchor injects the mobile's ::/64
prefix into the global routing system. If the mobile moves to a new anchor,
the old anchor withdraws the /64 and the new anchor injects it instead. In
other words, the system is based on complete de-aggregation and there is
no notion of a "home" network - the mobile is always "away from home".

This is a very different model, and naturally supports continuity of the mobile's
mobile network prefix at all times due to the nature of the routing system. It
provides "scalable de-aggregation", which is something that the routing
research group (RRG) investigated but has not been accomplished until now.

I think it would be worth considering this model both on its own merits and/or
in conjunction with the dmm document. The notion of a "home network" need
not be preserved, and instead we have scalable de-aggregation. Please have a
look (as I did for the dmm doc) and post comments or questions.

Thanks - Fred

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:43 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11

Folks - As we discussed in the WG meeting at IETF103, we are issuing WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11.

The document went through several revisions and there were good amount of reviews on this document.  The authors have addressed all the comments and there are no open issues that we are tracking at this time. We believe the document is ready for IESG reviews and like to confirm the same from the working group.


The following message commences a two week WGLC for all feedback.

Document Link:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11.txt

The target status for this document is "Informational".

Please post any comments/concerns on the draft.

Thanks!
Dapeng & Sri