Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <> Wed, 22 May 2013 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D283D21F9654 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wn90bQq9BZwG for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 14:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D2421F964C for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 14:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=9433; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369256487; x=1370466087; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=I5nAz0X+qzIDzqtxZaqGiW6QZXLYV/0NaP6NNzAxYJI=; b=e0bxVQLyCYW/ZnyFVNjMSpS/FhgUx686OpRn1N5fQmdlcim2pAWdBh1f XAif2lbabNu5KBV31TdQVVAmQlLGrWYbumu6pOGgdnUIHCksGzVxZjsX6 oZ1EOrFhuNE9ZHo0FW5GEzKfftu85SjEF2r0z2wl36ga3JiVaHF/GIGXy U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.87,723,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="213816036"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 May 2013 21:01:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4ML171H012587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 May 2013 21:01:07 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 22 May 2013 16:01:06 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <>
To: Basavaraj Patil <>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06
Thread-Index: AQHOVy96RsvRLCtAEUCu95E5Obm4XA==
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:01:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8102A9890xmbalnx03ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:01:39 -0000

Hi Raj,

Inline …

From: Basavaraj Patil <<>>
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:49 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <<>> wrote:
Hi Raj,

Adding to what carlos said. Just one clarification.

On 5/20/13 8:04 AM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <<>> wrote:

>> 5. In Sec 4.4.1, step 4:
>>    "If the mobile access
>>         gateway does not know the delegated prefix(es), then the
>>         delegated mobile network prefix in the DMNP option(s) MUST be
>>         set to the unspecified IPv6 address "::", "
>> How would the MAG know the delegated prefix(es)? Unless it is
>> just renewing the assigned prefix(es)?

The prefixes can be statically configured in the policy profile. Typically
mobile networks are statically configured (but registered with the LMA) as
we don't want the prefixes to disappear if the egress link goes down and
that will result in local communication between the hosts to break. So,
the prefixes are statically provisioned in the mobile network. But,
mobility support comes up only when there is active session with LMA
enabling the forwarding.

If the MAG knows the prefixes, it can indicate them in the DMNP option.
If the MAG does not know the prefixes,  it will carry a NULL value.
LMA assigns them based on what is in the BCE state.

This is consistent with how the home address (IPv4 HoA, HNP) options are
carried in PMIP signaling messages.

Raj>  What does this mean: "Typically
mobile networks are statically configured (but registered with the LMA)...."?

Also: "So,
the prefixes are statically provisioned in the mobile network."

Would be good if you can clarify since you have a view or interpretation that I am not sure everyone is in sync with.

[Sri] I'm just saying, the subnets (DMNP's) are configured manually in the mobile network. But, those subnets belong to the LMA from routing point of view. This is almost like a static IP configuration.
There is also the other approach, every thing happens dynamically, the prefix is obtained from the LMA/MAG and then gets configured in the mobile network.
In most deployments, IMO, static configuration is preferred as they don't want the networks/prefixes to disappear, if the LMA is not reachable and the PMIP tunnel goes down. There won't be IP mobility or external reachability, but there will be internal node to node communication.