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

Inline:

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Raj,
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Basavaraj Patil wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I-D: Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6
> > <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05>
> >
> >
> > Issues:
> > -------
> > 1. I-D states: "However, Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning
> > a prefix to a router and  managing its IP mobility."
> >
> > PMIP6 specifically mentions that the network based mobility solution
> > is for a host (as defined in RFC3775). It would be useful to mention
> > that this I-D is extending network based mobility support to routers
> > as well.
>
> Ok. I would write this as:
>
>    responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host.  However,
>    Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to a router and
>    managing IP mobility for it and the networks it serves. This document
>

Raj> Okay.

>
> > 2. "This document specifies an extension to
> >    Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for supporting network mobility using
> >    DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation."
> >
> > Should it explicitly state that the extension to PMIP6 protocol is for
> > enabling network mobility for routers?
>
> Maybe.. see above.
>

Raj> No harm in emphasizing it.

>
> > 3. "The mobility elements in the network allow the
> >    IP host to obtain an IPv4 address and/or a set of IPv6 addresses
> >    ..."
> >
> > MAG/LMA assign the host an IPv6 prefix.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit more?
>

Raj> The I-D is saying that the LMA assigns the MN a set of IPv6 addresses.
What I meant is that the LMA assigns IPv6 prefixes to the MN.

>
>
> > 4. Would be useful to mention how binding revocation is handled in the
> > case of delegated prefixes to the MR.
>
> Good point. That needs to be clarified.
>
> > 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.
>
> Section 3.4.2 states it..? I don't quite get what is missing here..
>

Raj> Right. I missed that.
The text in 3.4.2 :
"

   o  On receiving packets from a mobile router connected to one access
      link, the mobile access gateway MUST ensure that there is an
      established binding for the mobile router and the local mobility
      anchor for the source delegated mobile network prefix before
      tunneling the packet to the MR's local mobility anchor.

"

is fine. So the MAG ensures that the packet can be forwarded by checking
the extended BULE at the MAG?

-Raj

>
> - Jouni
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > -Raj
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > netext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>

-- 
Basavaraj Patil