Re: [netext] Access Network Information option for Proxy Mobile IPv6

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

> 
> I reviewed this I-D and have a few questions:
> 
> 1. Why does the LMA  need to obtain the access network information from the
> MAG? Can it not obtain  the same from the AAA server with which it has an
> interface?
> The MN has to  authenticate via the AN to the AAA server prior to PMIP6
> being triggered. So  I would expect that AAA has the information about the
> access network which  could then be obtained by the LMA.
> 
> 2. Why does the binding cache at the  LMA and/or MAG need to store the
> information carried in the ANI option? I  don¹t see how it would be used
> from the document.
> 
> 3. The statement :  "In access systems where the mobile access gateway is
>        attached to a micro-mobility domain such as IEEE 802.11 WLAN
>        domain, the DHCP relay agent function in that micro-mobility
>        domain may be configured to add the access network information  in
>       DHCP option (82), which is the DHCP Relay Agent  Information option
>       [RFC3046].  The mobile access  gateway may learn the access network
>       information from  this option."
> Seems like a lot of handwaving. Is there a DHCP option for  carrying access
> network information?
> If you want this info to be carried  in option 82, I would think that there
> is a need to specify this in the DHC  WG.

BTW Option 82 is DHCPv4 option, RFC 3046 defines DHCPv4 Relay Agent Options.

> 
> 4. Can you give me an example of how the LMA would classify traffic  or
> treat Mns differently based on the information carried in the ANI  option?
> The statement:
> "Policy systems in mobility architectures such as  PCC [TS23203] and ANDSF
>    [TS23402] in 3GPP system allow configuration  of policy rules with
>    conditions based on the access network  information.  For example, the
>    service treatment for the mobile  node's traffic may be different when
>    they are attached to a access  network owned by the home operator than
>    when owned by a roaming  partner.  The service treatment can also be
>    different based on  the configured SSID in case of IEEE 802.11 based
>    access  networks.
> "
> Is IMO not very realistic.

Way back 2008, we had a draft which is relevant on this:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xia-netlmm-mpls-tunnel-00.txt


and in 2009 this one:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xia-netext-qos-00.txt

> 
> 5. And lastly consider the  following scenario:
> The LMA knows the identity of the MAG from which it  receives BUs. If a MAG
> is associated with a wifi AP then the LMA already  knows (or can be
> configured) about the MAGs AN details. And hence there is  really no reason
> to send that information in every BU. The LMA is already  aware whether a
> MAG is viewed as one that belongs to the home network or a  visited
> network. Hence I don¹t see the need for explicit  signaling.
> 
> -Raj
> 
> 
> On 7/13/11 4:33 PM, "ext Sri Gundavelli"  <[e-mail]>  wrote:
> 
> >Please comment on the draft related to carrying Access Network  Information
> >to the LMA.
> > 
> >
> >7. Access Network  Information Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6   10 Mins
> >   I-D: 
> >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gundavelli-netext-access-network-option-01.tx
> >t
> >    Presenter: Jouni  Korhonen
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >netext  mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext  mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>