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

Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Wed, 21 November 2012 17:09 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 3A0E421F858F for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ISksdE+LVcB for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6A221F857B for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so3437801ieb.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:52 -0800 (PST)
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=szqlFy/lbqbFpkvR8+WEJmpfh9i74ZQY8ntAdQpy6bk=; b=JpUXkmIScRG2C51928ph98g7hEPmc8egR/x7jDbn/lTuIM2/nyJvsBlHcN3o2w2qnW 5bzHaGumP321YWCj9SKnFmf1uiF/0hxbRI+0SAARYxFT8c3Nf2M92c504js4wreA+H2e sEuNWqDapPpAQ0sQt7KV0VpAFu17JGUIgWxIh3P4S9Q3PJrh8UtXISa49cZCS9ekjrqO 1EB3RvV9/3LTJM39DDddbrsJtt6iRoxVtRHhhseCR8UR+yVLlIWB+dQgFd4x2BpvckCU VMsC/piGVRCqmjyke8h+lLC1m3cQLu0Jj/BZhe5DazTXHPkEnC+ZJv/SKvKFxKktQ5i9 ci9A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.15.134 with SMTP id x6mr227687igc.27.1353517792839; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.101.197 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:09:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <A14201F5-7609-41F7-8C29-9DE096C30740@gmail.com>
References: <CAA5F1T1D0q-kN8r9H5PaDAXhqFozZ11FnEQ_4ce3XisFbJT+XQ@mail.gmail.com> <A14201F5-7609-41F7-8C29-9DE096C30740@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:09:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T0fKBLZWXpGg9Nz625saqXmh=v01mAC_9UTptt9Mah=pw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340c473d46cd04cf046bd3
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Chair review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip (05)
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:09:54 -0000

Inline:

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