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

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?

-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