Re: [netext] [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming issue

[Marco Liebsch <[e-mail]>]

Hi Raj,

yes, agreed, that's why it has been proposed to add a section on this in 
the PS. The picture
could be based on what I sent some mails ago. We're currently preparing 
some text, but
I think it makes sense to discuss and agree on the text before it goes 
to the PS draft.

marco

[e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> One of the issues that we got hung up at IETF75 during the LR discussion was
> on roaming. It would be good to have a clear description of the relationship
> between the MAG and LMA in the context of a PMIP6 domain especially when you
> consider home and visited network scenarios wherein the MAG/LMA entities are
> in different domains.
>
> The PMIP6 domain definition in RFC5213:
> "
>       Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain refers to the network where the mobility
>       management of a mobile node is handled using the Proxy Mobile IPv6
>       protocol as defined in this specification.  The Proxy Mobile IPv6
>       domain includes local mobility anchors and mobile access gateways
>       between which security associations can be set up and
>       authorization for sending Proxy Binding Updates on behalf of the
>       mobile nodes can be ensured.
> "
>
> does not have any references to home/visited network concepts. The only
> criteria for an entity (MAG/LMA) being considered being a part of the PMIP6
> domain is the existence of a security association. It would be good to
> elaborate how this maps to the current discussion in LR.
>
> -Raj
>
>
> On 9/8/09 7:31 AM, "ext Marco Liebsch" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Mohana, Qin,
>>
>> ok, we can take a section "Roaming Aspects" into account for the PS and
>> discuss
>> applicability of localized routing. We can add this section to the
>> initial WG draft
>> of the PS. If folks consider this later as not useful, we can take it
>> out again.
>>
>> Btw, I think this discussion can happen in parallel to protocol design,
>> just to address
>> some folks' concern with a PS to delay the protocol design.
>>
>>  From the discussion we had so far, obviously it's common understanding that
>> use cases with two LMAs should be supported, right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> marco
>>
>>
>> Mohana Jeyatharan wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Qin, Marco and all,
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> I am wondering whether we need to write something to address roaming
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> issue
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> or what we talk about here is just to clarify how to understand local
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> MAG
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> routing applicability.
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> Yes, I agree. The PS needs to mention about some deployment scenarios
>>> wherevthe local MAG routing can be applied (ex bcos of SA available) and
>>> scenarios where cannot be applied (SA cannot be established so cannot
>>> perform).
>>> *The scenarios Marco attached previously can be used.
>>> *Perhaps some terminilogy such as PMIPv6 domain, administrative domain
>>> etc in the PS will be helpful. I mean PMIPv6 doamin is already well
>>> defined but re-emphasizing it w.r.t. to the work in local MAG routing
>>> will be useful.
>>>
>>> I guess these canbe captured without any details of solutions in the PS
>>> draft. Such capturing is useful to identify whether the solution drafts
>>> we have address all such cases of local MAG route optimization
>>> Again this is my opinion.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Mohana
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> Behalf
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Of Qin Wu
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 11:02 AM
>>>> To: Mohana Jeyatharan; Marco Liebsch
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [netext] [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming
>>>> issue
>>>>
>>>> Hi,Mohana and Marco:
>>>> I am wondering whether we need to write something to address roaming
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> issue
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> or what we talk about here is just to clarify how to understand local
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> MAG
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> routing applicability.
>>>> As for me, I think it is beneficial to have some explaination
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> text/section
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> addressing this in the PS draft.
>>>>
>>>> Regards!
>>>> -Qin
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[e-mail]>
>>>> To: "Marco Liebsch" <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>; "Sri Gundavelli"
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> <[e-mail]>;
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> "Cypher, David E." <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:44 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming issue
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Marco,
>>>>
>>>> Such disussion we had is more to understand the local MAG routing
>>>> applicability.
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> Or should we provide additional info in the
>>>>> PS?
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>> So, I think in PS we need not talk about SA between MAG. Or LMA or
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> some
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> other entity helping in creating the security association between
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>> MAGs.
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>> Mohana
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:19 PM
>>>>> To: Mohana Jeyatharan
>>>>> Cc: Marco Liebsch; Qin Wu; Sri Gundavelli; Cypher, David E.;
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming issue
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mohana,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mohana Jeyatharan schrieb:
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hi Marco and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> The PMIPv6 domain term does not fit in here, in my opinion, as we
>>>>>>> do not talk about the scope of a single MN's mobility, but the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> relation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> between mobility management components of two MNs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> I agree on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> solution: PMIPv6 components, which exchange signaling in the
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>> context
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> route optimization, must share a security association. Everything
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>> else
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> deployment specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Here we can probably explain which entities need security
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>> association
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>>> for RO to be succussful. This is more towards solution space tied
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>> to
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>>> different local MAG RO scenarios. I think the current localized RO
>>>>>> solution drafts have captured these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>> We can only provide examples. To establish a forwarding tunnel
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>> between
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>> MAGs does not mean
>>>>> we need an SA between them. Only if we perform signaling between
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>> MAGs,
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>> the SA is required.
>>>>> As you said, this is solution specific. So, to be on the safe side,
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>> we
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>> could discuss the
>>>>> picture and indicate that the solution may need an SA between the
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>> two
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>> associated LMAs
>>>>> and the two associated MAGs. Or should we provide additional info in
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>> the
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> PS?
>>>>>
>>>>> marco
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>>> BR,
>>>>>> Mohana
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:56 PM
>>>>>>> To: Qin Wu
>>>>>>> Cc: Sri Gundavelli; Cypher, David E.; Mohana Jeyatharan; Marco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Liebsch;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>> issue
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>>>> Now coming back to my original opinion that I don't see benefit
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>> in
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>>>> mandating support for or ruling out any particular roaming
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>> scenarios.
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>>>> The picture I proposed could be used in the Problem Statement
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>> (PS)
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>>>> at the most to discuss *issues* when components being associated
>>>>>>> with MN1 and MN2 are distributed between administrative domains.
>>>>>>> The PMIPv6 domain term does not fit in here, in my opinion, as we
>>>>>>> do not talk about the scope of a single MN's mobility, but the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> relation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> between mobility management components of two MNs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From that picture I see that only one requirement derives for
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>> the
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>> solution: PMIPv6 components, which exchange signaling in the
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>> context
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> route optimization, must share a security association. Everything
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>> else
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> deployment specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> marco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Qin Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Thank for your clarification.
>>>>>>>> In this sense, no matter which domain the MN's MAG belongs to,
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                 
>>> as
>>>  
>>>       
>>>>>> long
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> as the MN does not change LMA and MN's current MAG can setup SA
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>> with
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>>> MN's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> LMA, MN is still in the same PMIP6 domain as its LMA. Right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Regard!
>>>>>>>> -Qin
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> To: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netext mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>>    
>>>>         
>> _______________________________________________
>> netext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>     
>
>