Subject: Re: PMIPv6 - MIPv6 interactions (was Re: [netlmm] RE: Solution proposal for accommodating multihomed IP nodesin PMIP6)

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:10:57 -0700 (PDT)

Hello all,
  BCE could be based on MN ID but HNP is another story. My suggestion is to leave prefix management related issues to the next step (if there will be any?).
  The solution proposal goes into the prefix management issues and in some sense it is confusing. 
  People like Kuntal, Sri, myself and others have already pointed this out right at the beginning several weeks ago and the heated debates have not served much (may be I am wrong, tell me why?). 
  We have a draft on netlmm prefix delegation (Sri possibly to coauthor ), this problem could be dealt there, a subteam could be launched, etc. instead of using this proposed solution, 
  that's what I kindly suggest the WG to take.
  Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
To: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Netlmm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:51:22 AM
Subject: PMIPv6 - MIPv6 interactions (was Re: [netlmm] RE: Solution proposal for accommodating multihomed IP nodesin PMIP6)

Hi George,

Tsirtsis, George wrote:

> Putting that aside, however, this behavior is entirely unacceptable to
> MNs that handle inter-technology mobility with MIPv6! What such a mobile
> needs is that each AR it connects to (whether a PMIP MAG or not),
> assigns it a new local IP address, so that the MN can handle mobility by
> itself. Unless I am missing something, the proposed solution is not
> compatible with an "unmodified MIPv6 host", since the solution is
> designed to default to using PMIPv6.

Please take a look at scenario B in 
draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-01.

    In this scenario there are two types of nodes in the access network:
    some nodes support Mobile IPv6 while some others do not.  The
    rationale behind such a scenario is that the nodes implementing
    Mobile IPv6 may prefer to manage their own mobility.  Obviously,
    nodes that do not implement MIPv6 must rely on the network to manage
    their mobility: therefore Proxy MIPv6 is used for those nodes.

and

    However, in case there are nodes that implement Mobile IPv6 and want
    to use this protocol, the network must offer MIPv6 service to them.
    In such case the MAG should not emulate the home link.  Therefore,
    instead advertising the HNP, the MAG should advertise the
    topologically correct IP prefix, i.e. the prefix belonging to the
    MAG, so that the MN detects an IP movement, configures a new CoA and
    sends a MIPv6 Binding Update based on [RFC3775].

What we are missing in draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-01 is
some kind of indication to the MAG/AR that the mobile node wants to
use MIPv6 and not PMIPv6. In discussions offline we have considered
some indications at L2, modifying router solictations/advertisements,
etc... Good think there are already a few drafts on this.

What you want should not achieved by trying to limit PMIPv6
applicability. Thats the wrong thing to do. This is more dependent
on how you want to configure your access network. If the mobile node
wants to use MIPv6 (and indicates the same to the MAG/AR), you can
configure your MAG/AR to allocate a prefix from the MAG/AR's local
prefix pool.

Vijay

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

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