Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06

Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Thu, 23 May 2013 14:16 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 530D621F9669 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 sl3uC1zSZ1lf for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com (mail-oa0-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D042F21F9654 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id i4so4365856oah.7 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
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=+LaqaU/DxRiCXwVbjoPLwRgB1fzDCgSKv1MmyhzdLhE=; b=QNL+6IX8E8Ug76KBcNIQJo6Ma6ixh4YOmmzh2Q1C50wLnSjgp1eyu/YbSrovP2OKcC 0vEcPNU+Xokc1E/JqH65xYvbCGVqSqDfEAfShblmtd+wvJsqJLTj39ruJ3ogzCSCmb1/ D1Ab+we9d0X+FnNP0axlspOQaLbfwk8m/HRVXU/MGSQSanSY/VZnvkWK46OU+DS8Vkid j3QzI77nUHWOumIdeEmXpneKV8MvvaJhvimhtEht9L/K1HQAtjNg5n046Yuxk2OLCDfK Lb4QEpR9rqgqxem4GTDHlmNqjzqSadih3aM/p3GvMykd1aCjkT7gWen3sMoeiaJPIpcw 0w0w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.40.202 with SMTP id z10mr8410959obk.74.1369318588389; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.103.235 with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8102A9890@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com>
References: <CAA5F1T3fi=nbUdE6pgw00QVfHGZEcMBm-opoLWWEf+HPKJimfw@mail.gmail.com> <24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8102A9890@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:16:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T2O6hV2afy3aY2iySFLm6j4zDiQG66HmQDAw_BSs9u2Uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c32db60ba0fd04dd635445
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06
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: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:16:34 -0000

Inline:


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:

>  Hi Raj,
>
>  Inline …
>
>  Inline:
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
> sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Raj,
>>
>>
>> Adding to what carlos said. Just one clarification.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/20/13 8:04 AM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> 5. In Sec 4.4.1, step 4:
>> >>    "If the mobile access
>> >>         gateway does not know the delegated prefix(es), then the
>> >>         delegated mobile network prefix in the DMNP option(s) MUST be
>> >>         set to the unspecified IPv6 address "::", "
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How would the MAG know the delegated prefix(es)? Unless it is
>> >> just renewing the assigned prefix(es)?
>>
>>
>>  The prefixes can be statically configured in the policy profile.
>> Typically
>> mobile networks are statically configured (but registered with the LMA) as
>> we don't want the prefixes to disappear if the egress link goes down and
>> that will result in local communication between the hosts to break. So,
>> the prefixes are statically provisioned in the mobile network. But,
>> mobility support comes up only when there is active session with LMA
>> enabling the forwarding.
>>
>> If the MAG knows the prefixes, it can indicate them in the DMNP option.
>> If the MAG does not know the prefixes,  it will carry a NULL value.
>> LMA assigns them based on what is in the BCE state.
>>
>> This is consistent with how the home address (IPv4 HoA, HNP) options are
>> carried in PMIP signaling messages.
>>
>>
>  Raj>  What does this mean: "Typically
> mobile networks are statically configured (but registered with the
> LMA)...."?
>
>  Also: "So,
> the prefixes are statically provisioned in the mobile network."
>
>  Would be good if you can clarify since you have a view or interpretation
> that I am not sure everyone is in sync with.
>
>
>  [Sri] I'm just saying, the subnets (DMNP's) are configured manually in
> the mobile network. But, those subnets belong to the LMA from routing point
> of view. This is almost like a static IP configuration.
> There is also the other approach, every thing happens dynamically, the
> prefix is obtained from the LMA/MAG and then gets configured in the mobile
> network.
> In most deployments, IMO, static configuration is preferred as they don't
> want the networks/prefixes to disappear, if the LMA is not reachable and
> the PMIP tunnel goes down. There won't be IP mobility or external
> reachability, but there will be internal node to node communication.
>
>  Regards
> Sri
>

Raj> Well, okay. I get that. But from reading the text in the I-D it is not
very clear. Would recommend reworking the text to explain the above.

-Raj



-- 
Basavaraj Patil