[netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 31 May 2010 13:47 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AB23A6869 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.325, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9kj5j0lmEmNZ for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6A83A697A for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 May 2010 06:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9852CED4; Mon, 31 May 2010 16:47:14 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCAWctqwcr20; Mon, 31 May 2010 16:47:13 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8132CCA5; Mon, 31 May 2010 16:47:13 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4C03BDE1.1010508@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 16:47:13 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "netlmm@ietf.org" <netlmm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm>
List-Post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 13:47:29 -0000
- at times the document was unclear about where a particular piece of MIB information is held (at the MAG vs. LMA)
- in several places the document needs to be more explicit
- some IP address issues
- not sure I understood the OID limit issue
>From this description it is unclear where this table is. Is this a MAG or a LMA table?- pmip6MagProxyCOATable : models the Proxy Care-of Addresses configured on the egress interfaces of the mobile access gateway.
- pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixTable : contains the Home Network Prefixes assigned to the mobile node's connected interfaces.
Is this "the mobile node"? or all mobile nodes currently attached to this mag? Same issue in pmip6LmaHomeNetworkPrefixTable.
>From this desccription it is unclear from whose point of view this information is presented. Does this table exist at the MAGs or the LMAs?- pmip6LmaLMAATable : contains the LMA Addresses that are configured on the local mobility anchor. Each LMA Address acts as a transport endpoint of the tunnel between the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway.
This description should be more accurate about the encoding of the identifier. Do you mean that its the same encoding as in RFC 4283? Are there other alternatives than NAIs? Please be more precise. Section 2.2 is not a very good reference in this sense, because it too lacks specificity.Pmip6MNIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The identity of a mobile node in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. This is the stable identifier of a mobile node that the mobility entities in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain can always acquire and use it for predictably identifying a mobile node. This is typically an identifier such as Network Access Identifier (NAI) [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" title='"./rfc4282"' rel="nofollow">RFC4282] or other identifier such as a Media Access Control (MAC) address. " REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-2.2" rel="nofollow">Section 2.2" SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
As above, what is the encoding? Should the reference be Section 8.6 instead?Pmip6MNLlIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An identifier that identifies the attached interface of a mobile node. For those interfaces that have a link-layer identifier, this identifier can be based on that. The link-layer identifier in some cases is generated by the mobile node and conveyed to the mobile access gateway. This identifier of the attached interface must be stable as seen by any of the mobile access gateways in a given Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. In some other cases, there might not be any link-layer identifier associated with the mobile node's interface. An identifier value of ALL_ZERO is not considered a valid identifier and cannot be used as an interface identifier. " REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-2.2" rel="nofollow">Section 2.2" SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
Pmip6MNIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A unique integer value, greater than zero, assigned to each mobile node in a PMIPv6-Domain by the management system. It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously starting from 1. The value for each mobile node must remain constant at least from one re-initialization of the entity's network management system to the next re-initialization. " SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2147483647)
Due to roaming, there is an infinite number of potential visited mobile nodes. Are these indexes for the *current* mobile nodes, i.e., those currently attached to the domain? Or something else? Please specify.
Pmip6PBUAccessTechnologyType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This specifies the access technology which connects the mobile node to the access link on the mobile access gateway. " REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-8.5" rel="nofollow">Section 8.5" SYNTAX INTEGER { reserved (0), logicalNetworkInterface(1), pointToPointInterface (2), ethernet (3), wirelessLan (4), wimax (5) }
Perhaps you should explicitly state that the namespace from RFC 5213 should be used:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.txt" rel="nofollow">http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.txt
note the 3GPP etc items that do not appear in your list above...
pmip6FixedMagLinkLocalAddressOnAllAccessLinksType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The InetAddressType of the pmip6FixedMagLinkLocalAddressOnAllAccessLinks that follows. " ::= { pmip6Conf 2 } pmip6FixedMagLinkLocalAddressOnAllAccessLinks OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This variable indicates the link-local address value that all the mobile access gateways should use on any of the access links shared with any of the mobile nodes in that Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. If this variable is initialized to ALL_ZERO value, it implies the use of fixed link-local address mode is not enabled for that Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain." REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-2.2" rel="nofollow">Section 2.2, 6.8, 6.9.1.1, 6.9.3, 9.3" ::= { pmip6Conf 3 }
I'm not sure I understand this. There's an IPv6 link local address, but is there an IPv4 one? If not, why do we need the -Type object? And where is the IPv4 default router and DHCP server address stored in? Here there is room for just one address, not two as would expect to require in a dual stack environment... but maybe I'm missing something.
(Same issue in pmip6Binding table)
pmip6MagProxyCOAState OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { unknown(1), activated(2), tunneled(3) } MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the state of the Proxy-CoA: unknown -- The state of the Proxy-CoA cannot be determined. activated -- The Proxy-CoA is ready to establish tunnel tunneled -- The Proxy-CoA is used to set up the bi-directional tunnel. " ::= { pmip6MagProxyCOAEntry 3 }
Do we use activated or tunneled, if the system is otherwise up but the MAG has no mobile nodes, and has not had to send a Proxy Binding Update yet?
pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PMip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A table representing the Home Network Prefixes assigned to the mobile node's connected interfaces. This table shows the prefixes registered in the binding update list entry. " REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-2" rel="nofollow">Section 2, 6.1, 6.2" ::= { pmip6MagConf 2 }
The description has been written as if there was just one mobile node and one BUL entry. Please update the specification, I presume that you meant that this table contains ALL prefixes of ALL mobile nodes for which there exists ANY BUL in this MAG?
pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX PMip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in the Home Network Prefixes table. Implementers need to be aware that if the total number of octets in pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefix exceeds 114 then OIDs of column instances in this row will have more than 128 sub-identifiers and cannot be accessed using SNMPv1, SNMPv2c, or SNMPv3.
I do not understand this. The pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefix is of type InetAddress, so in this case its length would always be 16, no?
(Same issue in pmip6LmaLMAAEntry and pmip6LmaHomeNetworkPrefixEntry)
The lifetime in the PBA? The lifetime in the last RA sent out to the mobile node? The remaining lifetime? Please specify...pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixLifeTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Gauge32 UNITS "seconds" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The lifetime (in seconds) granted to the mobile node for this registration. " REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-6.2" rel="nofollow">Section 6.2, 6.7" ::= { pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixEntry 4 }
Is there a particular reason to drop the U from the abbreviation?pmip6MagBLTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF Pmip6MagBLEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This table corresponds to the Binding Update List(BL)
pmip6MagBLTimeRecentlyAccepted OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX DateAndTime MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The 64-bit timestamp value of the most recently accepted Proxy Binding Update message sent for this mobile node. This is the time-of-day on the mobile access gateway, when the proxy binding acknowledgement message with the Status field set to 0 was received. If the Timestamp option is not present in the Proxy Binding Update message (i.e., when the sequence number based scheme is in use), the value MUST be set to ALL_ZERO. " REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-5.1" rel="nofollow">Section 5.1, 8.1" ::= { pmip6MagBLEntry 9 }
I'm curious why the last timestamp is in this table, but the last sequence number is not. Sequence numbers and timestamps are equal alternatives in RFC 5213.
(Same issue in pmip6Binding table)
pmip6BindingPBUFlag OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TruthValue MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "true(1) if the local mobility anchor accepted the binding update with Proxy Registration Flag from a mobile access gateway. false(0) implies that the binding cache is from a mobile node. " REFERENCE "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5213" rel="nofollow">RFC 5213: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-02#section-5.1" rel="nofollow">Section 5.1, 8.1" ::= { pmip6BindingCacheEntry 1 }
Please specify what is expected to happen for Flag=0 entries otherwise. Do they even show up in this table, and if they do, how do the values in the entries get filled? Or would a client Mobile IP host simply lead to the creation of another entry in a Mobile IPv6 MIB table, not here?
sensitivity/vulnerability: nemoStatus: The value of this object is used to enable or disable the PMIPv6 functionality on a PMIPv6 entity. Access to this MO may be abused to disrupt the communication that depends on
This is the first time that nemoStatus appears in the document.
When using http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/bin/smitools.cgi" rel="nofollow">http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/bin/smitools.cgi I got these errors:
mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:88: [2] {bad-identifier-case} `YYY' should start with a lower case letter mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:88: [2] {object-identifier-not-prefix} Object identifier element `YYY' name only allowed as first element mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:407: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `pmip6MagProxyCOAEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 136 subidentifier(s) mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:537: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `pmip6MagHomeNetworkPrefixEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 648 subidentifier(s) mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:1462: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `pmip6LmaLMAAEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 136 subidentifier(s) mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:1640: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `pmip6LmaHomeNetworkPrefixEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 648 subidentifier(s) mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:145: [5] {type-without-format} warning: type `Pmip6MNIdentifier' has no format specification mibs/PMIPV6-MIB:160: [5] {type-without-format} warning: type `Pmip6MNLlIdentifier' has no format specification
At least some of these seem real problems. Please fix.
Jari
- [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib Jari Arkko
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Glenn M. Keeni
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Glenn M. Keeni
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Glenn M. Keeni
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Jari Arkko
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Jari Arkko
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Glenn M. Keeni
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Glenn M. Keeni
- Re: [netlmm] AD review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv… Jari Arkko