Subject: Re: [netlmm] proxymip6-01

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Alper,
  SEND deals with the IID part of the address not the prefix. So I don't see why pmipv6 should not work with SEND? MN's HoA could be SEND based in pmipv6, but the prefix should be per-MN and that's what pmipv6 currently supports.
  Have I missed something?

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:26:02 AM
Subject: [netlmm] proxymip6-01

Hello,

I have some comments and questions on I-D proxymip6-01.

   It sends Router
   Advertisement messages to the mobile node on the access link
   advertising the mobile node's home network prefix as the hosted on-
   link-prefix.

I presume this would not work with SEND. Correct?

   The mobile access gateway typically acts as a default router on the
   access link and any packet that the mobile node sends to any
   corresponding node is received by the mobile access gateway and it
   forwards the packet to its local mobility anchor through the bi-
   directional tunnel.

s/typically acts/MUST act
s/is received/MUST be received

As for the "forwarding", I think there is a bit of a detail there because of
EnableMAGLocalrouting.

   The Proxy Mobile IPv6 model, defined in this document requires the
   Proxy Binding Update messages sent by the mobile access gateway to
   have the Time Stamp option.

Are we assuming that all combinations of MAGs and LMAs have synchronized
clocks? 

   Upon receiving a Binding Update request from a mobile node with
   lifetime value set to 0, from a tunnel between itself and a trusted
   mobile access gateway, the local mobility anchor upon accepting that
   de-registration message, MUST forward the Binding Acknowledgement
   message in the tunnel from where it received the Binding Update
   request.

Do we really mean "MN sending a BU through the tunnel between the MAG and
the LMA?" Is this a special case of mixing MIP6 with PMIP6?

   One of the workarounds for this issue is to set the DNAv6
   configuration parameter, DNASameLinkDADFlag to TRUE and that will
   force the mobile node to redo DAD operation every time the interface
   comes up, even when DNAv6 does detect a link change .

If we go down that path, now all IPv6 nodes will have to perform DAD because
they would not know when they are being hosted by a PMIP6-enabled network.
This seems to defeat the purpose of DNA.

   The specific detection mechanism of the loss of a visiting mobile ...

   o  Link-layer event specific to the access technology

We used to have "link down" defined in the DNA WG's link indications draft.
We could use it here... if we had kept it.

   However, if the mobile access gateway has the ability to withdraw the
   previous default-router entry, by sending a Router Advertisement
   using the link-local address that of the previous mobile access
   gateway and with the Router Lifetime field set to value 0, then it is
   possible to force the flush of the Previous Default-Router entry from
   the mobile node's cache.

Again, SEND gets in the way of such a scheme...

Thanks.

Alper

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:35:42 +0300

Behcet,

SEND also deals with authorizing routers to advertise a given prefix.

Alper 

  _____  

From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:09 PM
To: Alper Yegin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] proxymip6-01

Hi Alper,
  SEND deals with the IID part of the address not the prefix. So I don't see
why pmipv6 should not work with SEND? MN's HoA could be SEND based in
pmipv6, but the prefix should be per-MN and that's what pmipv6 currently
supports.
  Have I missed something?

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:26:02 AM
Subject: [netlmm] proxymip6-01

Hello,

   It sends Router

Thanks.

Alper

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:49:29 -0400

Hi Behcet,
   It depends on what you mean by "works with". The CGA verification 
works fine since it is based on the IID part. But if the MAG has to 
protect its RA with send it needs a authorization certificate. The 
certificate is formatted as per RFC3779 and lists the prefixes the MAG 
is allowed to advertise. I presume that is what Alper was talking about.

Cheers
Suresh

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Alper,
>   SEND deals with the IID part of the address not the prefix. So I don't 
> see why pmipv6 should not work with SEND? MN's HoA could be SEND based 
> in pmipv6, but the prefix should be per-MN and that's what pmipv6 
> currently supports.
>   Have I missed something?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>