Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip (05)
Peter McCann <Peter.McCann@huawei.com> Wed, 21 November 2012 04:56 UTC
Return-Path: <Peter.McCann@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED7421F86C4 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:56:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QqaEqhpw15HP for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE8121F8692 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALT35801; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:55:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:55:22 +0000
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:55:50 +0000
Received: from dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.159]) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:55:43 -0800
From: Peter McCann <Peter.McCann@huawei.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip (05)
Thread-Index: AQHNxz3DQQQBC3W/sU+JRgVtIyAvCpfy7olggAC+hYD//3xY0IAAjCcA//97uoCAAJVJgP//ejdQABOHHoAABSeKoA==
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:55:43 +0000
Message-ID: <5963DDF1F751474D8DEEFDCDBEE43AE716E58A92@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAA5F1T1D0q-kN8r9H5PaDAXhqFozZ11FnEQ_4ce3XisFbJT+XQ@mail.gmail.com> <5963DDF1F751474D8DEEFDCDBEE43AE716E587E9@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <9892BC94-F495-405F-93E9-90A33DAF8C96@gmail.com> <5963DDF1F751474D8DEEFDCDBEE43AE716E588CF@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DF31E9C5-2730-4078-95EA-A2A88A4A0CA5@gmail.com> <5963DDF1F751474D8DEEFDCDBEE43AE716E5890E@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4B2145DF-3D42-4EE4-A1F7-E3622F2A74D8@gmail.com> <5963DDF1F751474D8DEEFDCDBEE43AE716E58955@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <F43FD8B7-01A9-4C88-B02B-B4219E36F129@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F43FD8B7-01A9-4C88-B02B-B4219E36F129@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.244.97]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip (05)
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:56:02 -0000
Hi, Jouni, jouni korhonen wrote: > Pete, > > 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. I guess if you sent a DHCP Renew every time you detected a link flap (handover to new MAG) that would do the trick. It seems somewhat expensive, though. >>> 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. It's perfectly conceivable to have an L2 handover to a new MAG in a new PMIP domain. I don't see why the L2 should be modified to know about the topology of which MAGs can reach which LMAs. >>> 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. Why would the L2 know about the MAG-to-LMA topology? >>> 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. > > DNA. Ok, but if all the MAGs are using the same link-local address, NUD would come back saying the router is still reachable, right? Would the MN/MR invalidate or try to reconfirm the old information in this circumstance? >>> 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. ICMP would only be sent if traffic is being generated. I am more worried about a state where the MN thinks its prefix is still good, but packets aren't being delivered and it could be an indeterminate amount of time before the situation is recognized/corrected. -Pete > - 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 >>>>>>>> netext@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>
- [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-p… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-nete… Peter McCann