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

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 20 November 2012 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 718C721F8787 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Kn4xD5LbLTFR for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DA921F8765 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so5205098lah.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:07:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=KdpvPVKvY2ZpT/Ih5h5Lsan0HB8MLToGqiD6ct/sRqs=; b=OnDdKgXHaUQXfSeIKOJSsWSBYqKqh89CsHWXndILo5aTzLoMjvHhgMbkf0wNNhnTYf Pk9oTDGVc6RZFCcXlp1JOktJJ3etak+T2/WGck854HgBVkvT5XQ9/fhtRYWM9PD+2lnx Ot2JxvEMhN9DoAkOrkX/Z6cFtwdzyP37wdV1AKn9kT9w+OYoBiTgxJHRRKZb6bHa8oU4 iSxFgkJwK+blrFrr3bOiEX4R0eoaQcgYERCjBb4ocyqBgl+4JL4etHkmseCrTtHDorgt UOACwBMMt9qHHIKKBOKMspgdZAZiuQN18tTOezI8SGf3cbdeDVwT8hy0Lwi+eSEOQJ0l zi4A==
Received: by 10.152.110.74 with SMTP id hy10mr15781364lab.54.1353442075323; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sj3sm5244027lab.2.2012.11.20.12.07.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5963DDF1F751474D8DEEFDCDBEE43AE716E587E9@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:07:49 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9892BC94-F495-405F-93E9-90A33DAF8C96@gmail.com>
References: <CAA5F1T1D0q-kN8r9H5PaDAXhqFozZ11FnEQ_4ce3XisFbJT+XQ@mail.gmail.com> <5963DDF1F751474D8DEEFDCDBEE43AE716E587E9@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: Peter McCann <Peter.McCann@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:07:57 -0000

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