[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Last Call:
From:       Sri Gundavelli <sgundave () cisco ! com>
Date:       2011-12-13 22:07:46
Message-ID: CB0D0CB2.3394A%sgundave () cisco ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Raj:

Thanks for your comments.


On 12/13/11 2:01 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
wrote:

> 
> Hi Sri,
> 
> On 12/13/11 3:29 PM, "ext Sri Gundavelli" <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Raj:
>> 
>> Please see inline.
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/13/11 1:12 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com"
>> <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 

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




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

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


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

Ok. Thanks



Regards
Sri

 
> -Raj
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> Sri 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -Basavaraj
>>> 
>>> On 12/13/11 2:50 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> 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
>>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]