Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 19 August 2011 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@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 11E0C21F8B4A for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 JZ-RjaCSinkK for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8D321F8B47 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so2977232bka.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=sbLV1FP6sLCoUvEiFRI+XIQxbslho5w+BnRxmYaPK24=; b=B5+POKdgZpHsJQgFn9Q0w/CdQVVmQO3ms4BXRBIJV/UrV1DI62NifktO3/YVA0IQPF mheFspMmSUG+Pfcm2gev5OEPoWjgJ7HEWJPCYJ0QwqTP7afCbcY9eK+IyFGIhoNV58ln Zr7+vq36JYEyUwNHFh6STMqALzBrvsfbLjj4c=
Received: by 10.204.152.153 with SMTP id g25mr67535bkw.285.1313788268965; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [83.150.126.201] ([83.150.126.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r24sm1149457bkr.59.2011.08.19.14.11.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E4E6A1D.70302@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:11:04 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA05D913-9AC4-437A-BE50-BDFB14A69DB2@gmail.com>
References: <CA728881.25763%sgundave@cisco.com> <CA72923B.2576F%sgundave@cisco.com> <CABk4tj948RNefsD+HsTmOjEQiO0SejCvCDfP9AV62AHJTuYJrA@mail.gmail.com> <4E0D0C6B-1A81-4330-A9ED-873A2E8F4088@gmail.com> <4E4E6A1D.70302@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:10:20 -0000

Alex,

FWIW is to make sure prefix delegation works when the MN in a RR role uses DHCPv6-PD to get its prefixes. It looks straight forward but there are few things to clarify in general operation and PBU/PBA signaling: what happens after a handover as the new MAG needs to learn delegated prefixes to setup a proper forwarding state, and how DHCPv6 (relay in a MAG) and LMA coordinate delegated prefixes to get the delegation work ok & establish proper forwarding state... etc.

There might be other cases and solutions but the above stuff is actually needed..

- Jouni



On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> Le 18/08/2011 23:52, Jouni a écrit :
>> 
>> It is about providing mobility for delegated prefixes.
> 
> Thanks Jouni.  Is it for an MR?  If yes, then there may exist other solutions possible as well.  Have you considered them?
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> - Jouni (as a co-author)
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 19, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Jong-Hyouk Lee wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Sri.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for sharing your opinions. I would like to also hear a reply from Joy. Joy, could you clearly state your views on the question from Alex?
>>> 
>>> Cheers.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Sri Gundavelli<sgundave@cisco.com>  wrote:
>>>> #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per definition is
>>>> CMIP enabled.
>>> 
>>> To ensure the terminology is right:
>>> 
>>> Delegated Prefix - Prefixes hosted by the mobile node, or the network
>>> elements behind the mobile node
>>> 
>>> Hosted Prefixes - prefixes hosted by the PMIPv6 mobility elements on the
>>> MN-AR access link. These are not delegated prefixes. An IP host behind the
>>> mobile node cannot use this prefix to generate an address, it wont receive
>>> RA's with these PIO's.
>>> 
>>> HNP typically implied prefixes delivered on PMIPv6 signaling plane. If DHCP
>>> PD is used by MN or a node behind for obtaining prefixes, those are simple
>>> IP prefixes. However, if mobility is provided to those prefixes, in the form
>>> of this draft, we can group them as HNP's, as mobility is provided and those
>>> prefixes are anchored on the LMA, from routing perspective.
>>> 
>>> MN/MR Distinction is clear I assume. But, NEMO MR, I may have implied, as
>>> mobile router with CMIP functionality in my prev mail. But, probably NEMO is
>>> a generic term. Any case, the distinction is understood, with or without
>>> CMIP ...
>>> 
>>> Sri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/18/11 9:14 AM, "Sri Gundavelli"<sgundave@cisco.com>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Alex:
>>>> 
>>>> If I may comment.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the goal of
>>>> supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
>>>> 
>>>> #1 Implies, mobility for the delegated prefixes
>>>> 
>>>>> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily to assign
>>>> MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)?  The two goals are distinctive IMHO.
>>>> 
>>>> Assigning HNP to mobile = mobility + delegated prefix (Same as #1)
>>>> 
>>>> #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per definition is
>>>> CMIP enabled.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So, the draft is supporting #1.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 8/18/11 8:50 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu"<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Raj,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 10/08/2011 23:34, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At IETF81, Carl Williams presented the I-D: "Prefix Delegation for
>>>>>> Proxy Mobile IPv6"<draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> General consensus at the Netext WG meeting was that prefix delegation
>>>>>> is a required feature for PMIP6.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the goal of
>>>>> supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily to assign
>>>>> MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)?  The two goals are distinctive IMHO.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This to help formulate a problem for prefix delegation for PMIP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> We are now following up with the questions on the ML.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Question to WG:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Should the WG specify prefix-delegation support for PMIP6?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes   [ ]
>>>>>> No    [ ]
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, if it is for MNP for Mobile Router.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Can we adopt as WG document the solution proposed in I-D:
>>>>>> draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt as the starting point of this
>>>>>> feature?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes   [ ]
>>>>>> No    [ ]
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, unless the problem is clearer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alex
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please respond by August 18th on the ML.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Chairs
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please see the discussion at the IETF81 WG meeting on this topic at:
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> netext mailing list
>>>>>> netext@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netext mailing list
>>>>> netext@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netext mailing list
>>>> netext@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netext mailing list
>>> netext@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> IMARA Team, INRIA, France.
>>> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random.
>>> 
>>> #email: hurryon (at) gmail (dot) com || jong-hyouk.lee (at) inria (dot) fr
>>> #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netext mailing list
>>> netext@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netext mailing list
>> netext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext