Maybe I missed Lorenzo's point and talked past him, though. I agree we should be talking about the state maintained for a prefix and not individual addresses. At least, for IPv6.
There is still a state management problem and we need to decide whether explicit signaling is required. -Pete -----Original Message----- From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 3:15 PM To: Peter McCann <[email protected]> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 Lorenzo, It is 3GPP practice (or law, should I say) is to assign a prefix in IPv6 to the UE. That is what Peter is talking about. Regards, Behcet On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Peter McCann <[email protected]> wrote: > With a fixed access network the prefix can be assigned to the link and > used by anyone who joins the link. > > > > With a prefix offering mobility the prefix belongs to the mobile host > and needs to move with it. There aren’t enough prefixes (even in > IPv6) to assign a permanent prefix to each UE for every topological > attachment point that it might visit or start a session from. > > > > -Pete > > > > > > From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 3:09 PM > To: Peter McCann <[email protected]> > Cc: jouni.nospam <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 > > > > But you have that problem with IP addresses as well, right? I don't > see how "assigning a prefix with certain properties" requires more > state in the network than "assigning an IP address with certain properties". > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Peter McCann > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Providing any kind of mobility service for a prefix will require some > state somewhere in the network. It would be great to avoid an > allocation request / response for the prefix, but the state has to be > created somehow before the UE can use the prefix and it has to be > reclaimed eventually after the UE stops using the prefix (which may > not be until well after it disconnects from the current link and moves to > another one). > > > > Would welcome any suggestions on how to manage this state. > > > > -Pete > > > > > > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 12:04 PM > To: jouni.nospam <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 > > > > Hi, > > > > I like the goal of reducing network cost by allowing the use of IP > addresses that do not require network mobility, but we should not be > doing this by requesting IP addresses from the network, because this > violates IPv6 address assignment best practices. > > > > Specifically, RFC 7934 recommends that a) the network should provide > multiple addresses from each prefix and b) the network should allow > the host to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests to the > network. > This is in conflict with at least this text in the draft, which says: > > > > In case an application > > requests one, the IP stack shall make an attempt to configure one > by > > issuing a request to the network. If the operation fails, the IP > > stack shall fail the associated socket request > > > > One way to resolve this conflict would be to say that the network must > not assign individual addresses, but /64 (or shorter) prefixes. So if > the device desires to use fixed IPv6 addresses, then the network > should give the host a fixed IPv6 prefix from which the host can form > as many addresses as it wants. > > > > I do not think we should advance this document until the conflicts are > resolved. This document is about IPv6 address assignment to mobile > nodes, and we should not publish a document about IPv6 address > assignment that conflicts with best current practices on IPv6 address > assignment. > > > > Regards, > > Lorenzo > > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM, jouni.nospam > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Folks, > > > > The authors of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07 and > draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source have come up with a merged > document draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08. > > > > This email starts a 2 week WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08. > > The WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16. > > > > Provide your comments, concerns and approvals to the email list (and > hopefully also to IssueTracker). > > > > - Jouni & Dapeng > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: IETF Secretariat <[email protected]> > > Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility > > Date: November 28, 2016 at 12:51:34 PM PST > > To: <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > > Resent-To: [email protected], [email protected] > > > > > The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility has been changed > to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Jouni Korhonen: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility/ > > > Comment: > WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
