Hi Raj: Thanks for your comments.
On 12/13/11 2:01 PM, "basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com" <basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi Sri, > > On 12/13/11 3:29 PM, "ext Sri Gundavelli" <sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Raj: >> >> Please see inline. >> >> >> On 12/13/11 1:12 PM, "basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com" >> <basavaraj.pa...@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.ar...@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 --------------------------------------------------------------------