Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-00.txt> (Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:50:06 +0200

The new version of this draft looks good to me: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-04.txt

Ready to be approved?

Jari

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:12:30 +0000

A few clarifying questions:

1. Would all the MAGs across different PMIP6 domains be required to use
the same LLA and IID?
As per the proposal a single LLA and IID are being reserved for use by
PMIP6 MAGs.

2. Is it mandatory for the MAGs in a PMIP6 domain to use this LLA and IID?
Or is it simply a recommendation.
Network configuration tools and protocols can ensure that the same LLA and
IID is configured across all MAGs in a PMIP6 domain. Hence assigning a
specific LLA and IID is unnecessary.

3. When a MAG is provisioned it needs to be associated with an LMA and a
security association configured between the MAG and LMA. As a part of that
process, the MAG could obtain the LLA and IID to be used from the LMA
itself. Would this approach not be sufficient?

-Basavaraj

On 12/13/11 2:50 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The new version of this draft looks good to me:
>http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-r
>eservations-04.txt
>
>Ready to be approved?
>
>Jari
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>[email-masked]
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:29:08 -0800

Hi Raj:

Please see inline.

> As per the proposal a single LLA and IID are being reserved for use by

We already have this requirement of using a fixed link-layer Id and IPv6
interface id on the MAG-AR interface, within a PMIPv6 domain. We did not do
the allocation of the same values and deployments have to configure these
values across every MAG in a PMIPv6 domain. Given the scope is a localized
domain, we can only specify this requirement for a given domain, along with
the other domain-wide parameters. Generally, requiring the configuration of
a domain wide value is not an issue, but when the values are about
link-layer id, we need a standardized value, and in the absence of that,
administrator will configure some random addresses, as we are noticing,
which can be an issue.

> specific LLA and IID is unnecessary.

Yes. With this draft, its requiring these assigned values to be used on the
MN-AR interface, eliminating the need for static CLI-based configuration
across all the MAG's in a domain.

> itself. Would this approach not be sufficient?

Its not really tied to the home network. Its more about MAG to MAG roaming,
within a PMIP domain. We required statically configured values in the base
spec, the same is now an IANA allocated fixed value. Sure, it is possible to
extend the message interface and push it from the LMA as well, if we want to
define new option for MAG-LLID on PMIP interface, but allocating fixed
values for the already defined domain-wide parameters is the simplest
option.

Regards
Sri

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:01:25 +0000

Hi Sri,

>administrator will configure some random addresses, as we are noticing,

Agree. RFC5213 requires the MAGs in a PMIP6 domain be configured with the
same LLA. 
Sec 9.3 of RFC5213 defines the parameter:
"FixedMAGLinkLayerAddressOnAllAccessLinks". It would be good to explain
that this I-D obsoletes this parameter or indicate the IANA assigned value
to be now provisioned for the same.
Do you see any concern from security or privacy perspective the use of a
common LLA and IID for all MAGs across multiple PMIP6 domains?

>across all the MAG's in a domain.

Okay. But it is not just w.r.t all MAGs in a single domain; It applies to
all MAGs across domains, right?

>values for the already defined domain-wide parameters is the simplest

Okay. I agree it is easier to have a static configuration value than to
extend the protocol between MAG-LMA with an additional option.

-Raj

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:07:46 -0800

Hi Raj:

Thanks for your comments.

> common LLA and IID for all MAGs across multiple PMIP6 domains?

Ok, I can reflect that point. The security section was updated after IESG
review, reflecting the impact with SEND deployed on the access link.

> all MAGs across domains, right?

Yes, the same assigned values will be used on all the MAG-AR links.

> extend the protocol between MAG-LMA with an additional option.

Ok. Thanks

Regards
Sri