IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ila] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ila@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ila@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 120C31200C1; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:07:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 QTFXmhuQbgf2; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B146126C89; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:07:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5398; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1517893664; x=1519103264; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=DNYSXIwZXA4fv38+JwI9B7aqmwzUl2ssucBA8z+/PKE=; b=N66ds8TzhMX7EFCw48+snwFAEZcSnE8oZb9ryHb1U3318yov1pHd4C5H JGBAOoHsy7WlNXOjyZAipjR+vmcVQz+1u4fup7eKoWH6jfwIO8xEdV6V0 +6KhMvfCUDrzxBf8ge8JLz2Xk3cd8Th/BT70s2FYvJv/fiXZS9hr1an1a Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C0AACiN3la/4sNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJZeIFWKAqNf44wggKRc4VVgTkDXAqFOwKCTVQYAQEBAQEBAQECayiFIwEBAQMBdwIFCwIBCBEBAgECKAcyFAMGCAIEAQ0FiVFcCLwVhQCEAIF4AQEBAQEBAQECAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhGqCFYFXhRaDLwSCD4VcBaQoApVwlDqXTgIRGQGBOwEfOTKBHnAVgwOEd3iOD4EXAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,467,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="66947957"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2018 05:07:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1657hqm028230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Feb 2018 05:07:43 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 23:07:42 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 23:07:42 -0600
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
CC: "ila@ietf.org" <ila@ietf.org>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHTnwhqca67W6Xvi0S6JcplWRqWgA==
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:07:42 +0000
Message-ID: <D69E7528.2A3DA3%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <151750859755.24445.6929673804211867286.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPDqMerbX4UJ-mK-A-f=im=1h0Yz-52QfWLLgVDkybtSShNp5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Xpi=3mn8VfQ3eRm4ZWWDfYd10e+y3EUcY2rX-FaYbXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0Xpi=3mn8VfQ3eRm4ZWWDfYd10e+y3EUcY2rX-FaYbXw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.20.188.60]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D69E75282A3DA3sgundaveciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ila/VIutGqp6jT6PDjg36GBF80K0AjU>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ila@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Identifier Locator Addressing <ila.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ila>, <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ila/>
List-Post: <mailto:ila@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ila>, <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 05:07:46 -0000

> best practice is not to use singleton addresses, but always to provide a /64 prefix.

But, how does that work with ILA's approach of identifier management?  With the previously IETF recommended approaches in RFC5213 and even in 3GPP architecture, per RFC3315, the network assigned  a set of unique prefixes for each MN, allowed the MN to generate the identifiers.  Even CGA addressing worked with the per-MN prefix model.

But, with ILA there is no concept of prefix assignment. Will ILA network now generate a identifier block for each MN?  Is DHCPv6 the only approach?

If that block is not summarizable, will it not result in mapping table size getting multiple many times?


Sri





From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com<mailto:lorenzo@google.com>>
Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 8:52 PM
To: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net<mailto:tom@quantonium.net>>
Cc: "ila@ietf.org<mailto:ila@ietf.org>" <ila@ietf.org<mailto:ila@ietf.org>>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net<mailto:tom@quantonium.net>> wrote:
We like like to request that the dmm WG consider ILA as a candidate
protocol for the 3GPP "Study on User Plane Protocol in 5GC".

Echoing Tom's earlier comment about this: I think the address assignment sections (6.3 and 8.3) should be reworded to clarify that for general purpose hosts, best practice is not to use singleton addresses, but always to provide a /64 prefix.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email