Subject: [netlmm] #127: Change Section 2.3 to refer to prefixes as well as addresses

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:42:44 -0000

#127: Change Section 2.3 to refer to prefixes as well as addresses
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  minor                         |   Milestone:  milestone4              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  2.0                     
 Keywords:  REQ draft                     |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Fred Templin says:

 2) (specific) Section 2.3, final paragraph, change occurrences of
 "IP address" to "IP addresses and/or delegated prefixes". (There
 may be other examples of this in the document.)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/127>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:52:17 -0000

#127: Change Section 2.3 to refer to prefixes as well as addresses
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]      |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                        |      Status:  assigned                
  Priority:  minor                         |   Milestone:  milestone4              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req  |     Version:  2.0                     
Resolution:                                |    Keywords:  REQ draft               
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * status:  new => assigned

Comment:

 At this time, it is unclear to me that this change will not cause changes
 in standard IGP route information distribution when the node moves from
 one MAG to another. At the very least, it may require that IGP route
 information distribution be configured in a certain way so that routes
 from inside the NETLMM domain for the prefixes routed by the mobile node
 point to the LMA.

 When we started NETLMM, we discussed how to handle mobile routers, and the
 concensus was that we would initially concentrate on mobile routers that
 used the NEMO protocol. Such devices will appear as hosts from the network
 side, with their local addresses anchored at the LMA, so there is no issue
 with how the IGP would handle movement.

 Note that this issue is different from the case where the LMA assigns a
 prefix to the link between the LMA and the mobile node. In that case, the
 mobile node is not acting as a router, so the prefix remains anchored at
 the LMA, along with any addresses configured or assigned to the mobile
 node.

 I'd therefore suggest that this change be rejected for now, but we could
 revisit how to support mobile routers that don't use NEMO after we finish
 the base protocol and recharter. I will keep this issue open for a week in
 case there is any discussion.

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:09:27 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netlmm [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] #127: Change Section 2.3 to refer to prefixes as
well as
> addresses
-------------------------------------------+----------------------------
----

-------------------------------------------+----------------------------
----
>  from inside the NETLMM domain for the prefixes routed by the mobile
node

Prefixes delegated to MNs are taken from prefixes aggregated by
LMAs such that no IGP perturbations will occur when the MN moves
from one MAG to another.

>  the LMA, along with any addresses configured or assigned to the
mobile

There is no requirement that a MN that receives delegated prefixes
behave as a router on behalf of those prefixes, e.g., the MN could
be a simple node that may become a router at some future time.
Example behavior is for the MN to assign delegated prefixes to a
loopback interface or to not assign them to an interface at all.  

>  case there is any discussion.

The question of prefix delegation should not be linked with
mobile router considerations; they are two separate things.
 
Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:57:51 -0700

James, 

> jak>> There is an ongoing discussion on the IPv6 list about this, and
it is 
> not at all clear to me that your viewpoint is accepted. Until it is, I
would 
> prefer to err on the side of being conservative. Like I said in the
note, we 
> can always revisit this issue when we recharter.

Going back over that discussion, it seems that the point
not yet agreed is whether a MN requesting a prefix delegation
could be a simple host and not a router. However, there is
documented evidence for a "simple router" (with a single
physical interface) that assigns delegated prefixes to a
loopback interface and leaves the physical interface
unnumbered; see:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-autoconf-multisubnet-ma
nets-00.txt

In other words, the extent to which the MN is a "router"
is that it has two interfaces (the loopback interface and
the physical interface) and forwards packets between the
two interfaces; otherwise, its behavior is the same as
for a normal host.

Fred

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:34:03 -0700

Fred,

jak>> There is an ongoing discussion on the IPv6 list about this, and it is 
not at all clear to me that your viewpoint is accepted. Until it is, I would 
prefer to err on the side of being conservative. Like I said in the note, we 
can always revisit this issue when we recharter.

jak>> Ditto.

            jak

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:48:44 -0700

James, 

it is 
would 
note, we 

Fred

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:28:43 -0700

This seems like a very restricted case to me.

What do other people in the WG think? Is this something that we really need 
in this document?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] #127: Change Section 2.3 to refer to prefixes as well 
asaddresses

James,

it is
would
note, we

Fred