Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06
Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Thu, 23 May 2013 18:16 UTC
Return-Path: <bpatil1@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 AE6F221F958B for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FGTlrp36nVQ8 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com (mail-oa0-f41.google.com [209.85.219.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CAE21F87D2 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n9so4841079oag.28 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XVSCwCZ2nI27eAcY0i2KYkTKOSa3vlNoEAKtOg2DKMI=; b=HBqfZ6ORySUvFC57pjHh/oQ0ap9euC+qv7+ws1fkD3B0p3BP9FMmOCfK37OG+Zndt2 N0je958lZ4ZAq4WUEADdVkypU9Sb3pu5xoMuTKg6C14otzrHkDJyobrYQR1w/idzOwwq wgkNoQTI3T5FaKtFTAFn8lJcnaoGJG1MFzXC/3UyGZGAUFvHRGE/FobJYgZq8TYXnMz9 nLiF2+g5gC+1pcC4TQIY90w0STkHc5I4iHXMYgxd/R3UPYEYUZ4UUUEpztoqaNiC7kuG ywkAzeK3ggilw78SjTRUu411zNC1s617wbUt0PKW5IQqjusJUhDUfXa4wlsPSxrpu824 O7QA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.33.202 with SMTP id t10mr9197905oei.2.1369331859360; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.103.235 with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1369331695.4605.12.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
References: <CAA5F1T3X29yeRBgzd4aq3QnkA80Ov-7JBf2K5O__nTRSa1ZeqQ@mail.gmail.com> <1369062263.4503.40.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <CAA5F1T2XnKxfxWcVxXoAoQB6m3ruxXn8ha7pqHEKE4XeZ_1UxQ@mail.gmail.com> <1369331695.4605.12.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:57:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T1i9tqs1H3HbgCz34Fq5yYXBJYKr3LQ7=YaVSGhp0CjHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013c66b40e950004dd666b5b"
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06
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: Thu, 23 May 2013 18:16:05 -0000
Thanks Carlos. That helps. I am fine with the changes. Will initiate a WG LC on the I-D. -Raj On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano < cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: > Hi Raj, all, > > Some answers inline below. > > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 14:40 -0500, Basavaraj Patil wrote: > > Hi Carlos et al, > > > > > > My comments inline: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > > <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: > > Hi Raj, > > > > Some additional responses inline below (as Joy mentioned, we > > believe > > that everything is clearer in the new version, but just in > > case). > > > > On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 12:59 -0500, Basavaraj Patil wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > > > > 1. In the terminology section: > > > "The DMNP is an IPv4 or an IPv6 prefix delegated to a > > mobile router > > > and advertised in the mobile network." > > > > > > > > > What is the mobile network being refered to in this > > statement? > > > Is it the PMIP6 domain itself? Or is it the network > > that the > > > mobile router is hosting? > > > > > > [Carlos] It is the network that the mobile router is hosting. > > > > > > Raj> Okay. > > However the current statement in the I-D: > > " > > The Delegated Mobile Network Prefix is an IPv4/IPv6 prefix > > delegated to a mobile router and is hosted in the mobile network. > > " > > Would be better to say that this prefix is hosted by the PMIP6 > > mobility agent, i.e LMA. > > > [Carlos] There are two considerations here: > > 1. The prefix is configured in the mobile network. RA's are sent in > those networks. > 2. The LMA advertises that prefix into IGP. The LMA is the routing > anchor, but is not hosting those prefixes. Text below (from Section > 5.2.3): > > o The local mobility anchor MUST advertise a connected route into > the Routing Infrastructure for the IP prefixes delegated to all of > the mobile routers that it is serving. This step essentially > enables the local mobility anchor to be a routing anchor for those > IP prefixes and be able to intercept IP packets sent to those > mobile networks. > > > > > > > > > > > 2. In Sec 4.3.1: > > > "It is possible that the delegated prefix(es) may > > > have been assigned to the MAG by the LMA during this > > procedure > > > of > > > PMIPv6 tunnel establishment. That is the MAG may > > include one > > > (or > > > more) Delegated Mobile Network Prefix (DMNP) mobility > > options > > > which MUST be set to the unspecified IPv6 address > > "::" in the > > > PBU > > > to request the delegated prefix(es). The LMA assigns > > a new set > > > of DMNP(s) in PBA message." > > > > > > > > > Not sure what your assumptions are here. Why does the > > LMA > > > assign delegated prefix(es) during normal RFC5213 > > PMIP6 tunnel > > > establishment procedures? > > > What would cause the MAG to include the DMNP option > > in the PBU > > > at this stage (Step 2) of the session? > > > > > > [Carlos] We have clarified this in the new version. > > > > > > Raj> Section 4.3.1 no longer exists. Would have been easier if the > > revised section was pasted here :( > > [Carlos] Sorry about this, my fault. We reorganized the document for > readability and so moved sections around. The MAG will include the DMNP > option in the PBU, triggered by: > > 1) MN's policy profile > 2) Receives a trigger from DHCP module > > This is covered in Section 5.1.2. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. In Sec 4.3.1: > > > " The mobile router, acting as a "Requesting Router" as > > described > > > in [RFC3633], sends a DHCPv6 SOLICIT message > > including one or > > > more IA_PD option(s) to the mobile access gateway > > (which has a > > > "DHCPv6 Server" function) to acquire the delegated > > prefix(es)." > > > > > > > > > Is there an assumption that the MAG is also the > > DHCPv6 server? > > > The MAG could be a DHCP relay as well, right? > > > > > > [Carlos] Right, two deployment models are considered: one in > > which the > > MAG acts a DHCPv6 Delegating Router (i.e., server) and another > > in which > > the MAG acts as DHCPv6 Relay Agent and the LMA as Delegating > > Router. > > This has been further clarified in the new version. > > > > > > Raj> Okay.. Good. > > > > > > > > > > > 4. In Sec 4.3.1, step 5: > > > "The LMA must set > > > up forwarding for the delegated prefixes as reachable > > through > > > the > > > PMIPv6 tunnel." > > > > > > > > > The LMA may or may not assign these delegated > > prefixes. The MAG > > > could be the one assigning the delegated prefixes as > > per the > > > description. Are those prefixes routable by the LMA? > > > > > > [Carlos] Yes, the prefixes are routable by the LMA. > > > > > > Raj> How?? Are those prefixes which the MAG delegates also anchored at > > the LMA? > > [Carlos] This is covered in Section 5.2.3. Text below: > > 5.2.3: > o The local mobility anchor MUST advertise a connected route into > the Routing Infrastructure for the IP prefixes delegated to all of > the mobile routers that it is serving. This step essentially > enables the local mobility anchor to be a routing anchor for those > IP prefixes and be able to intercept IP packets sent to those > mobile networks. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. In Sec 4.4.1, step 4: > > > "If the mobile access > > > gateway does not know the delegated prefix(es), then > > the > > > delegated mobile network prefix in the DMNP > > option(s) MUST be > > > set to the unspecified IPv6 address "::", " > > > > > > > > > How would the MAG know the delegated prefix(es)? Unless it > > is > > > just renewing the assigned prefix(es)? > > > > > > [Carlos] This has been further revised and clarified in the > > new version. > > > > > > Raj> What is the new section in the document? Sec 4.4.1 is no longer > > there. > > [Carlos] Again, sorry about this. This is also due to the reorganization > of the document that we have done to improve readability. > > If the MAG has the list of delegated prefixes belonging to a session: > - it includes the specific prefix values in the DMNP option > > If the MAG does not have the list of delegated prefixes belonging to a > session: > - it includes a value of 0::0 in the DMNP option > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Is the assumption that the DHCP server functionality > > resides either > > > at the MAG or the LMA in this I-D? > > > > > > [Carlos] Yes. It should be now clearer with the updates we > > have done in > > the text. > > > > > > Raj> Okay. > > > > > > > > > > > 7. In Sec 6.2 you state: > > > "In order to receive these packets, the > > > local mobility anchor MUST be the topological anchor > > of the MR's > > > delegated mobile network prefix(es)." > > > > > > > > > This should be made clear up front in order to avoid > > confusion > > > about how forwarding is accomplished. > > > > > > > > > > [Carlos] This should be now clear. > > > > > > Raj> Can you point me to the new text that clarifies this? > > [Carlos] This is clarified in Section 5.2.3: > > o The local mobility anchor MUST advertise a connected route into > the Routing Infrastructure for the IP prefixes delegated to all of > the mobile routers that it is serving. This step essentially > enables the local mobility anchor to be a routing anchor for those > IP prefixes and be able to intercept IP packets sent to those > mobile networks. > > > > > -Raj > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments! > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > Editorial: > > > > > > > > > s/Proxy Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without > > requiring > > > its participation in any mobility signaling, being the > > network > > > responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the > > host./ Proxy > > > Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without > > requiring > > > its participation in any mobility signaling. Mobility > > elements in > > > the network are responsible for managing IP mobility on > > behalf of > > > the host. > > > > > > > > > s/However, > > > Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to > > a router > > > and > > > managing its IP mobility./However, Proxy Mobile IPv6 > > lacks the > > > ability to assign a prefix to a router and manage its IP > > > mobility. > > > > > > > > > s/and be able to obtain IP mobility support for those IP > > addresses./ > > > and enable IP mobility support for the assigned IP > > address or > > > prefixes. > > > > > > > > > s/However, > > > this network-based mobility management support is > > specific to an IP > > > host and currently there is no such network-based > > mobility > > > management > > > support for a mobile router with a cluster of IP hosts > > behind > > > it./However, > > > the Proxy Mobile IPv6 based solution for network-based > > mobility > > > management is specific to IP hosts and does not provide > > similar > > > functionality for a mobile router with a cluster of IP > > hosts behind > > > it. > > > > > > > > > -Raj > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netext mailing list > > > netext@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netext mailing list > > netext@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Basavaraj Patil > > > -- Basavaraj Patil
- [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil