[mif] request for review: draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost

John Kaippallimalil <John.Kaippallimalil@huawei.com> Fri, 18 March 2016 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <John.Kaippallimalil@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B216412DA15 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oWyybYd5yFms for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA33812D903 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CGH81119; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:56:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:56:55 +0000
Received: from DFWEML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([]) by dfweml702-chm ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:56:50 -0700
From: John Kaippallimalil <John.Kaippallimalil@huawei.com>
To: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: request for review: draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost
Thread-Index: AdGBHgP79adFraf2Rgavq4/hHleNLg==
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:56:49 +0000
Message-ID: <6561EABF52675C45BCDACA1B4D7AA1171DB6D7C3@dfweml501-mbb>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6561EABF52675C45BCDACA1B4D7AA1171DB6D7C3dfweml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.56EC0928.00E0, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b147fa78d7a0786ffe9c336dc3dc1b99
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/rwMtQiOKowTgkQgPchBNIZXv0Kw>
Subject: [mif] request for review: draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:58:33 -0000

This is a request for a review of the draft in dmm, "Communicating Prefix Cost to Mobile Nodes"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost/

This draft was presented twice in dmm, and Brian Haberman suggested that we get reviews from 6man and mif. The draft proposes an prefix-cost sub option in RA to indicate the cost of maintaining the IP connection segment between host and access router. This can allow a host to select /attach to access connections with lower cost.

   In a network implementing Distributed Mobility Management, it has
   been agreed that Mobile Nodes (MNs) should exhibit agility in their
   use of IP addresses.  For example, an MN might use an old address for
   ongoing socket connections but use a new, locally assigned address
   for new socket connections.  Determining when to assign a new
   address, and when to release old addresses, is currently an open
   problem.  Making an optimal decision about address assignment and
   release must involve a tradeoff in the amount of signaling used to
   allocate the new addresses, the amount of utility that applications
   are deriving from the use of a previously assigned address, and the
   cost of maintaining an address that was assigned at a previous point
   of attachment.  As the MN moves farther and farther from the initial
   point where an address was assigned, more and more resources are used
   to redirect packets destined for that IP address to its current
   location.  The MN currently does not know the amount of resources
   used as this depends on mobility path and internal routing topology
   of the network(s) which are known only to the network operator.  This
   document provides a mechanism to communicate to the MN the cost of
   maintaining a given prefix at the MN's current point of attachment so
   that the MN can make better decisions about when to release old
   addresses and assign new ones.