IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net> Tue, 06 February 2018 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@quantonium.net>
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 45B76126BFD for <ila@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:13:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quantonium-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 nTaHpyJQlWtu for <ila@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9DA71200C1 for <ila@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:13:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id f3so1274408wmc.1 for <ila@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:13:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quantonium-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZxW+Ez0nNg5CeB5a2h04TZr+yREHQmdaHZw0Rttl+YQ=; b=VHRCB8/Ndi6vmcTRxgx1/+du50+kdJO7k38k2WyOyT1C1d87KMk3cOLBG6lqaHcMxV 3CKV3+w0lTONQljSwPxrbz4PiXbXt2kglkNhR7brTbqodNO3ZPXoKFZqWS4MpyrGsZJk qaPsPeKliQMcEkcMFOY1r/x9kV4Q4C4DWNZXOcuvom368qUNG+EPIlEapt1lpzdwKs4s 3nM98sj85XKUl3rpmecB/ydxKvqSjSmJufEGWSh9nx9z3GEznvNxqQlKKd/ubv6S6CZJ OrL8ymCZexYjjLm1YdRvySSHrNY2sWKeOOIgYzWyrvuj+c1wYaY0LU0XL+4cc856YSHP Jdmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZxW+Ez0nNg5CeB5a2h04TZr+yREHQmdaHZw0Rttl+YQ=; b=JxOffgZ/SrPEHxiGpbC6QOXWtHxjb8urc0dH5KbZqDgCkFt3SZjWXC1knASIndfFKr WaUIdY+NOY46rR5TrkFsD3aZ/rKC3QhKcRPT3r/chkxga60gat3qNHFEdyerMrMHivTM kKqEOqMVGyXE30vQK1RElyMwiwEkP/lHCpRjWLXPmHdy7jrGRTCx8u//fIt+DugX7H2+ ouK2vwT/U1tZ0U9XgcWGYap6g1OZx1q+gX+GYhWUpMHpyJN43OXHHydL0UBu6BznCSZT HT+1DpgWB3JVu7lFJh6+HNT310QtFWbm5vNTIy+D6x+dY4gjAtw9qv9bockux6B14A3S bZ0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBbzLCUBbIzG+QnrZLHH7i+RSmX6bDy8WPL5p05TQbsm11CF1pD 8kBGhDJQ26mjEreYukXNwH9dGmRk4UAUVTTWspQs3A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225gr+nAvBzPVE2jfzE938MFiCGMkPkk26aFnSMsJkSfIBd5oAXtT+x9hhvjrMJFuoPtHPp8nSjm6e5zqCy5e28=
X-Received: by 10.28.241.14 with SMTP id p14mr721341wmh.20.1517894004223; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:13:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.173.66 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:13:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <D69E7528.2A3DA3%sgundave@cisco.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:13:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPDqMerANSChdLHvhCcKbdz4fQixh2Q_SZd3Grnq750fdP=SSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "ila@ietf.org" <ila@ietf.org>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082f9ab4edc48e0564843c71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ila/ei9sKU03tMCWdy8VgsLTlSfZIgs>
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 05:13:28 -0000

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:

> > 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?
>
> Sri, see section 6.3.2. That describes encoding the identifier in the
upper sixty-four bits and using an indirection table to accommodate network
prefixes.

Tom

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> on behalf of Lorenzo Colitti <
> lorenzo@google.com>
> Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 8:52 PM
> To: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
> Cc: "ila@ietf.org" <ila@ietf.org>, dmm <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> 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