Subject: [netlmm] PMIP Binding Lifetime

From: Heikki Mahkonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:07:54 +0300

Hi all,

    In the current PMIPv6 spec there is no mention about how the 
lifetime is constructed for bindings. I don't know if this is something 
that should be there or not? It is somewhat different from how the 
binding lifetime is put together in RFC3775 - or not?

Any Ideas?

BR,

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

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:13:26 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Heikki,

Its as per 3775. The PBU fields are to interpreted as per 3775.

Sri

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Heikki Mahkonen wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>   In the current PMIPv6 spec there is no mention about how the lifetime is 
> constructed for bindings. I don't know if this is something that should be 
> there or not? It is somewhat different from how the binding lifetime is put 
> together in RFC3775 - or not?
>
> Any Ideas?
>
> BR,
>
> Heikki Mahkonen
>

---

From: Heikki Mahkonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:40:50 +0300

Hi Sri,

> Its as per 3775. The PBU fields are to interpreted as per 3775.
Yes I know but I meant how does the MAG and LMA determine what to put 
into the lifetime field. I think the section from RFC 3775 that explain 
the binding lifetime are below. How should these be interpreted for 
PMIPv6. I think easy way would be to send some MAX value in PBU and the 
LMA will decrease this value if neccesary - what do you think? Also can 
the home network prefixes have different lifetimes?

RFC 3775: 11.7.1 Sending Binding Updates to the Home Agent

 o  The value specified in the Lifetime field MUST be non-zero and
      SHOULD be less than or equal to the remaining valid lifetime of
      the home address and the care-of address specified for the
      binding.

RFC 3775: 10.3.1 Primary Care-of Address Registration
The lifetime of the Binding Cache entry depends on a number of
   factors:

   o  The lifetime for the Binding Cache entry MUST NOT be greater than
      the Lifetime value specified in the Binding Update.

   o  The lifetime for the Binding Cache entry MUST NOT be greater than
      the remaining valid lifetime for the subnet prefix in the mobile
      node's home address specified with the Binding Update.  The
      remaining valid lifetime for this prefix is determined by the home
      agent based on its own Prefix List entry [12 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3775#ref-12>].

      The remaining preferred lifetime SHOULD NOT have any impact on the
      lifetime for the binding cache entry.

      The home agent MUST remove a binding when the valid lifetime of
      the prefix associated with it expires.

   o  The home agent MAY further decrease the specified lifetime for the
      binding, for example based on a local policy.  The resulting
      lifetime is stored by the home agent in the Binding Cache entry,
      and this Binding Cache entry MUST be deleted by the home agent
      after the expiration of this lifetime.

BR,

Heikki Mahkonen

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:00:51 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Heikki,

LMA is a logical extension to 3775 HA function. Its a feature addition
to support proxy model along with the related security considerations,
and the per mobile prefix model. All the general considerations such
as LMA controlling the lifetime should apply. W.r.t HNP lifetime, the
spec already suggests a fixed lifetime for all the HNP prefix set.

Thanks
Sri

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Heikki Mahkonen wrote:

> Yes I know but I meant how does the MAG and LMA determine what to put into 
> the lifetime field. I think the section from RFC 3775 that explain the 
> binding lifetime are below. How should these be interpreted for PMIPv6. I 
> think easy way would be to send some MAX value in PBU and the LMA will 
> decrease this value if neccesary - what do you think? Also can the home 
> network prefixes have different lifetimes?
>

>      agent based on its own Prefix List entry [12
>      <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3775#ref-12>].
>