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

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