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

Lorenzo,
It is 3GPP practice (or law, should I say) is to assign a prefix in
IPv6 to the UE. That is what Peter is talking about.

Regards,

Behcet

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:12 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>