Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01

<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.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 39F7811E8083 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:38:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 7wG2nXxBYBxy for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0916421F8783 for <netext@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAE1cN0S007779; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:38:24 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.26]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:38:08 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-071.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.1.235]) by 008-AM1MMR1-010.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.26]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.003; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:38:07 +0100
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
Thread-Index: AQHMnYpTGqYa7OGEukONGJ+vApALIZWmqVIAgAVtDwA=
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:38:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE691D0.159C9%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAceKDtSbdz+F3rnVwQbsAGUT6Gzp_M+20vrnP-B+14R9RA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
x-originating-ip: [130.129.17.117]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CAE691D0159C9basavarajpatilnokiacom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2011 01:38:08.0354 (UTC) FILETIME=[0FE30420:01CCA26E]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:38:30 -0000

Behect,

I believe you answered your own question in the email. So yes, you are correct. The answer is No.

-Basavaraj

From: ext Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com<mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org<mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:46:28 -0600
To: Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com<mailto:basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>>
Cc: Netext <netext@ietf.org<mailto:netext@ietf.org>>, <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01

Hi Basavaraj,

I have a question:

Can we at Netext work on specs that require modifying MN?

Reading the charter:

The work in this charter is entirely internal to the network and does
  not affect host IP stack operation in any way (except perhaps through
  impacting packet forwarding capacity visible to the hosts).

It seems to me the answer is no?

Regards,

Behcet
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM, <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com<mailto:Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>> wrote:

A few quick comments:

1. Abstract should have no references. And the description can be
  improved. It really is hard to understand what this I-D is trying
  to accomplish.

2. The introduction section can be improved. Maybe you should include
  a problem statement section to indicate what is lacking in PMIP6 as
  per RFC5213.

3. In Sec 3.1 it states:
"
  o  The MR (as a RR) MUST either obtain the Home Network Prefix (HNP)
     before initiating the DHCPv6-PD procedure or in case of stateful
     address configuration simultaneously while configuring the Mobile
     Node Home Address (MN-HoA).
"

  So does this imply that the MR (PMIP6 MN) obtains an HNP as per
  RFC5213 for its own use prior to the MR requesting via DHCPv6
  another set of prefixes to be used for delegating to downstream
  nodes?

4. If the prefixes (delegated) are provided by a DHCP server (and not
  the LMA), how does the LMA get informed about these? In the PBU?
  How do you ensure that
  "All the mobile network prefixes managed in the DR MUST be
  reachable via local mobility anchor (LMA)" when they are not
  assigned by the LMA?

5. Sec 3.1 also states:
  "The delegating router (DR) can be located either at LMA or some
     other device in the PMIPv6 domain"

   What is this some other device?

6.  In Sec 3.2 the I-D states that the profile needs to indicate
   whether an MN can be assigned prefixes for delegation. Does the
   profile indicate whether the host is a mobile router? Is this
   needed? Any MN should be able to act as an MR.

7. In Fig 1, you have a DR shown there. How does the DR indicate the
  assigned prefixes to the LMA?
  - Step 5 seems disconnected from the rest of the process. Maybe it
  is better to split that aspect and show it in another figure.

8. Does the lifetime of the delegated prefix (assigned by a DR) the
  same as the lifetime assigned by the LMA?
  Why not have Sec 3.3.3 to describe how a prefix is revoked or
  deleted? Text is currently in 3.3.2.

9. In sec 3.4.2:
  "Other considerations from Section 6.10.5 or [RFC5213]"

  Sec 6.10.5 of this I-D? There is none.

10. Sec 3.5.2 states:
   "In order to receive
     those packets, the LMA MUST advertise a connected route into the
     routing infrastructure for the MR's MNP(s)."

   - Is it enough from a specification standpoint to state that the
     routes need to be injected into the routing infra?
     Handwaving????

11. Are there any new threats or security issues that arise from
   assigning prefixes to be delegated downstream in the case of
   PMIP6? Security section seems pretty light.


-Raj

_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org<mailto:netext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext