Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip (05)

jouni korhonen <> Tue, 20 November 2012 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D138C21F8826 for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.54
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABafUlXGnOIN for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC0621F86E5 for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d3so5313082lah.31 for <>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ksMVibAXlbt2p2jJH7ngDFBgf59X5pmlUC/DgID1ZJc=; b=kNW7V9bsmvqy/BYD1r8On2POomhcFeGwq+BtxPQxY0m454CYIdDJ/2wVriJBg3C/Xq 7TmSnSqU9GuSfrEUCniOpnx4w/8T4UswR50DORrizrT5sD5811CYg267wc9UN7UcNknX uw5c4vZbaVlCCaKjxoUPJbeqAI2CIO8txmyKKgQ7r2pIueImsm4fwIi2lMo1hARW9qnU rSZjyZza4QAr2Y3Mho1E/0M4civKlmaJ27hl0AAS1ooBAHX8lLGq2rRyUGCZnmuqHZQa NwaTrE/8trGCQTZ5fM2enDk6VBpkbHi6gYdVJ7N/VJBwrm70y/NdPquc/CGmMALxYV37 NqRQ==
Received: by with SMTP id hh5mr16064751lab.52.1353452371121; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c]) by with ESMTPS id pz9sm5350645lab.11.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:59:25 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Peter McCann <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "" <>, Basavaraj Patil <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip (05)
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:59:33 -0000


On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Peter McCann wrote:

> Hi, Jouni,
> jouni korhonen wrote:
>> Pete,
>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
>>> Hi, Jouni,
>>> jouni korhonen wrote:
>>>> Pete,
>>>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Jouni,
>>>>> What if the new MAG cannot connect back to the old LMA?  How does
>>>>> the MR find out that its delegated prefix is no longer routable?
>>>> In that case your PMIP session goes down.. and the MR sees it as a
>>>> change of the link. In that case MR does what any DHCP client is
>>>> supposed to do i.e. verify whether its prefixes are still valid on
>>>> the new link using a confirm/reply exchange.
>>> How exactly does the MR detect that the PMIP session has gone down?
>>> The MR sees a MAG with the same globally reserved link-layer and
>>> link-local address.  Is it looking for a Router Advertisement with a
>>> new link prefix?  RFC 4861 specifies that subsequent Router
>>> Advertisements do not invalidate previously received information.
>> If the PMIP session goes down and the LMA changes then the HNP also
>> changes. For the MR that is an indication that something happened on
>> the link -> confirm. 
> The only way to communicate the new HNP is with an RA, correct?

No. Also DHCP applies. If your assumption about MN/MR not being able to
figure out when to confirm its address/prefix, then whole RFC5213 DHCP-based
address assignment would be broken.

>> If that is not a good enough indication I would
>> assume the MR gets link up/down even since the end of PMIP session
>> would also mean the MAG kicks the MR out of the L2 session.
> I don't see why this handover should be any different at L2 from
> the handovers within a single PMIP domain.  I think the MN would
> get link down/up (or not) in both cases, and would not be able to
> distinguish the end of the session on this basis.

You were talking about the change of LMA.. which would per current specs
mean end of PMIP session. Now if PMIP session ends the MN/MR won't  be
let hanging around in L2 either, right? So the MN/MR would definitely
know that it got kicked away. Think e.g. about cellular case. The lost
of session means the link is plain gone. 

>> If the link is some wireless technology e.g. a cellular link, then a
>> PMIP session change would equal more drastic stuff on the MAG facing
>> interface/link. The MR would definitely know the link changed or
>> something happened to it -> confirm.
> It is an inter-MAG handover like any other.  Indistinguishable at
> L2.

It is way different than an inter-MAG handover. See above.

>> To be sure the MR sees the change of link, each PMIP session could
>> have their unique MAG link-local (possible by specs but a hack in a
>> way, thus not elaborated in this I-D).
> Even so the receipt of a new RA from a new link-local address would
> not invalidate the old information received from the old MAG.  This
> is not a trigger that deprecates the old prefix.  An MN conforming
> to 4861 would not necessarily take any action upon receiving the new
> RA.


>> Even RFC3315 is rather vague how the client figures out the link
>> changed. It is just assumed it somehow gets some indication something
>> happened.
> I don't think we can assume that inter-MAG handoffs involving a change
> of LMA are at all distinguishable at the link layer from inter-MAG
> handoffs that do not involve a change of LMA.

I disagree. You would know it at your L2. And even if you wouldn't have
such L2, your MAG or latest LMA should send you a destination unreachable
ICMP telling the packets (having src out of delegated prefix) won't get
delivered. If not.. then the deployment is broken and we cannot fix that
part with a spec.

- Jouni

> -Pete
>> - Jouni
>>> Besides, as we have noted, the RAs have nothing to do with the
>>> delegated prefix so it seems wrong to use them to control the validity
>>> of the delegated prefix.
>>> -Pete
>>>> - JOuni
>>>>> -Pete
>>>>> jouni korhonen wrote:
>>>>>> Pete,
>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
>>>>>>> Basavaraj Patil wrote:
>>>>>>>> 5. How does the MAG know that it needs to allow forwarding of
>>>>>>>> packets via the PMIP6 tunnel for packets with SRC address that
>>>>>>>> are derived from the delegated prefixes? Its not clear if there
>>>>>>>> is added functionality needed at the MAG to accomplish this.
>>>>>>> I think there are potentially some deeper issues here.
>>>>>>> The MN sees the original MAG as its "delegating router".  When the
>>>>>>> MN changes to a new MAG, there is no good way to tell that the
>>>>>>> delegated prefixes are still routable to the link.  The
>> delegating
>>>>>> This is what the I-D is about.. That's we got the new signaling
>>>>>> in place and the handover case described in Section 3.4.3.
>>>>>>> router has become unreachable.  The new router may send an RA that
>>>>>>> advertises the original link prefix, and so the MN can tell that
>>>>>>> its SLAAC unicast addresses are still valid on the link.
>> However,
>>>>>> When the MR (i.e. in RFC5213 terminology the MN) does a handover,
>>>>>> the prefix used between the MR-MAG stays the same as usually
>>>>>> provided by PMIP6. Section 3.4.3 the describes what the MAG has to
>>>>>> do in order to know the existing delegated prefixes and set the
>>>>>> forwarding state.
>>>>>>> RFC 3633 says that the delegated prefix is NOT advertised on the
>>>>>>> link between the delegating router and the requesting router.
>>>>>> And they are not. The delegated prefixes are used on the downstream
>>>>>> interfaces of the MR, not on the MR-MAG link. If the prefix used on
>>>>>> the MR-MAG link is part of the delegated prefix, then the MR has to
>>>>>> use RFC6603.
>>>>>>> Therefore, there is no way for the MR to determine whether it
>>>>>>> can still use the delegated prefixes, other than perhaps
>>>>>>> re-running DHCPv6-PD on the new link.
>>>>>> From MR point of view nothing changed. So what is the issue?
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>>> -Pete
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> netext mailing list