[netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Mon, 07 November 2011 20:17 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 5550511E80C1 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:17:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.479, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 Jkhlk+-G8G+8 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A379311E80C0 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pA7KHsng004524; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:17:55 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.21]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:17:54 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-071.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.1.235]) by 008-AM1MMR1-012.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.21]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:17:53 +0100
From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: netext@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
Thread-Index: AQHMnYpTGqYa7OGEukONGJ+vApALIQ==
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:17:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CADD9916.1535F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.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: [172.19.59.33]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <541C80BA34419143AEBCE7BEBA0D6FA3@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2011 20:17:54.0086 (UTC) FILETIME=[54CFE460:01CC9D8A]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [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, 07 Nov 2011 20:17:58 -0000
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] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Alexandru Petrescu