Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 16 September 2011 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@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 9D3DA11E80AF for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.252
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.347, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 lijMhFL9f79K for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B1511E80A2 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LRL007J0DW50P@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for netext@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:38:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LRL00GW4DW5G8@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for netext@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:38:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id ADZ71896; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:38:28 +0800
Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:38:17 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.130) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:38:22 +0800
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:38:19 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.130]
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Message-id: <30979506D6B247B1B28FEF71383C8767@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <CA97DFEB.10DD9%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 04:47:08 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org, netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:36:20 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Cc: <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org>rg>; <netext@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04


 >>> It would be useful to at least provide some examples of the tunnel
>>> 
>>> establishment between MAGs from a completeness perspective. It looks
>>> 
>>> like handwaving at the moment.
>>
>>I agree with you that it is handwavy, but I am not sure what to add
>>here. People wanted all kinds of tunnels here, IPv6, IPv4, GRE, USP,
>>IPsec etc. with either manual or dynamic creation. If you want a
>>specific scenario, I could add it here but if I remember correctly we
>>did not even manage to get consensus among the authors.
> 
> Without actually specifying at least one default tunneling mechanism, how
> would you achieve interoperability between MAGs in a PMIP6 domain? Whether
> it is IP-in-IP or GRE, it does not matter. I would recommend that the I-D
> specify the details about the tunneling between the MAGs. I hope you can
> discuss and get consensus among the authors and from WG members.

[Qin]: I think the default tunneling mechanism should be IP-in-IP, just like what it said
in the section 6.10.2 of RFC5213. e.g., RFC2473 can be used to establish IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling.
If additional tunneling mechanisms is introduced in, Negotiation
on which tunnel mechanism is selected is required, however as described in RFC6279, this should be 
out scope of netext. 
If dynamic mechanism is used to establish tunneling, we should follow RFC6279 to establish localized
routing states on relevant MAGs.

The question is is it enough to use LRI/LRA to populate localized routing 
states to the MAGs? Do we need addtional extension to LRI/LRA
used between MAGs?