Re: Multi-link subnets and MIPv6 (was Re: [Mip6] Re: WG Review: Recharter of Mobility for IPv6 (mip6))

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hello Vijay,
>   I could not see the second quote
>  >    A multilink subnet model SHOULD NOT be used.  IETF WG's using, or
>  >    considering using, multilink subnets today should investigate moving  
>  >    to one of the other models.  For example, Mobile IPv6 should
>  >    investigate having the Home Agent not decrement the Hop Limit, and
>  >    forward multicast traffic.
> 
> in Dave's draft, how did you get this? Is there a new version (-01)?

in section 4.1

Vijay

>  
> Behcet
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>
> To: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:54:27 PM
> Subject: Multi-link subnets and MIPv6 (was Re: [Mip6] Re: WG Review: 
> Recharter of Mobility for IPv6 (mip6))
> 
> Hi Jari and Dave,
> 
> Jari Arkko wrote:
>  > Hi Vijay,
>  >> can you send us more information on this? specifically
>  >> on what we are supposed to look for. document problems
>  >> that we might encounter when MIPv6 is run over multilink
>  >> subnets?
> 
>  > The basic reference is the new IAB draft,
>  > draft-iab-multilink-subnet-issues-00.txt.
> 
> I went through this document.
> 
> first I was surprised when I saw the following
> text
> 
>  >    However, other WGs continued to allow for this concept even though
>  >    it had been rejected in the IPv6 WG.  Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] allows
>  >    tunnels to mobile nodes to use the same subnet as a home link, with
>  >    the Home Agent doing layer 3 forwarding between them.
> 
> I was surprised to see the MIPv6 home link and the
> tunnels to each mobile node being compared to a
> multi-link subnet. its not a multi-link subnet as
> described in draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt.
> the home agent does not bridge and forward link-scope
> traffic onto the tunnels.
> 
> the draft later on says
> 
>  >    A multilink subnet model SHOULD NOT be used.  IETF WG's using, or
>  >    considering using, multilink subnets today should investigate moving  
>  >    to one of the other models.  For example, Mobile IPv6 should
>  >    investigate having the Home Agent not decrement the Hop Limit, and
>  >    forward multicast traffic.
> 
> currently no link local traffic sent on the home
> link is forwarded over the Mobile IP tunnel to the
> mobile node.
> 
> regarding forwarding multicast traffic RFC 3775
> says the following.
> 
>     Interception and tunneling of the following multicast addressed
>     packets on the home network are only done if the home agent supports
>     multicast group membership control messages from the mobile node as
>     described in the next section.  Tunneling of multicast packets to a
>     mobile node follows similar limitations to those defined above for
>     unicast packets addressed to the mobile node's link-local and site-
>     local addresses.  Multicast packets addressed to a multicast address
>     with link-local scope [3], to which the mobile node is subscribed,
>     MUST NOT be tunneled to the mobile node.  These packets SHOULD be
>     silently discarded (after delivering to other local multicast
>     recipients).  Multicast packets addressed to a multicast address with
>     a scope larger than link-local, but smaller than global (e.g., site-
>     local and organization-local [3], to which the mobile node is
>     subscribed, SHOULD NOT be tunneled to the mobile node.  Multicast
>     packets addressed with a global scope, to which the mobile node has
>     successfully subscribed, MUST be tunneled to the mobile node.
> 
>  > I would like to see documentation of how
>  > Mobile IPv6 is affected, and possibly, a short
>  > RFC that updates RFC 3775 to remove or
>  > reduce the problems.
> 
> the current use of Mobile IP tunnels as an
> extension of the home links does not introduce the
> issues described with multi-link subnets in
> draft-iab-multilink-subnet-issues. or I might be
> missing something big.
> 
> comments?
> 
> Vijay
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> 


_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6