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

Maybe I missed Lorenzo's point and talked past him, though.

I agree we should be talking about the state maintained for a prefix and not individual addresses.  At least, for IPv6.

There is still a state management problem and we need to decide whether explicit signaling is required.

-Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Peter McCann <Peter.McCann@huawei.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: 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
>