Thomas,
After reading the forthcoming 6MAN slides, about MIPv6 in Node
Requirements, let me draw attention on the NEMOv6 RFC3963, absent from
the slides.
I believe NEMOv6 RFC3963 should be mentioned too, because it is an
extension to RFC3775 and has been implemented. RFC3775 doesn't cite
NEMOv6, neither does RFC3775bis.
What do you think?
Alex
Thomas Narten a écrit :
The document currently says:
8. Mobile IP
The Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] specification defines requirements for
the following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes - correspondent nodes with support for route
optimization - home agents - all IPv6 routers
Hosts MAY support mobile node functionality described in Section
8.5 of [RFC3775], including support of generic packet tunneling
[RFC2473] and secure home agent communications [RFC4877].
Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for
correspondent nodes described in Section 8.2 of [RFC3775].
Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements
for all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [RFC3775].
Routers MAY support the home agent functionality described in
Section 8.4 of [RFC3775], including support of [RFC2473] and
[RFC4877].
I think the above text needs updating. As with SEND, I do not believe
we have sufficient implementation and deployment experience to make
a general SHOULD recommendations for RO.
I would like to get a better sense of what the implementation status
of MIPv6 is. AFAIK, it is not implemented in mainstream products (or
distributions) at this time. Moreover, RO is new technology to IPv6
(MIPv4 does not have it), making it even more important to get real
deployment and operational experience before making a broad SHOULD
recommendation.
The first MAY recommendation basically says that implementing
mobility functions (i.e., being a mobile node) is completely
optional. That seems fine.
The second recommendation says that generic hosts SHOULD implement
RO. But, RO primarily benefits mobile nodes, so it is in some sense
an unfunded mandate for hosts. Hosts pay a cost for implementing RO,
but don't see much, if any, benefit. Moreover, it is unclear at this
point that we have any significant deployment experience with this
technology.
W.r.t. RO, discussion in the past has also raised concerns as to
whether larger content servers (i.e., amazons and googles) would be
willing to support RO. They raised concerns about scalability, etc.
Thus, in the absence of significant deployment and operational
experience, I think it is premature to broadly recommend
implemenation of RO. A MAY for general hosts seems about the best we
can do.
Regarding the last recommendation, that Routers SHOULD support
generic mobility-related requirements, this means (from RFC3775):
8.3. All IPv6 Routers
All IPv6 routers, even those not serving as a home agent for Mobile
IPv6, have an effect on how well mobile nodes can communicate:
o Every IPv6 router SHOULD be able to send an Advertisement
Interval option (Section 7.3) in each of its Router Advertisements
[12], to aid movement detection by mobile nodes (as in Section
11.5.1). The use of this option in Router Advertisements SHOULD be
configurable.
o Every IPv6 router SHOULD be able to support sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements at the faster rate described in
Section 7.5. If the router supports a faster rate, the used rate
MUST be configurable.
o Each router SHOULD include at least one prefix with the Router
Address (R) bit set and with its full IP address in its Router
Advertisements (as described in Section 7.2).
o Routers supporting filtering packets with routing headers SHOULD
support different rules for type 0 and type 2 routing headers (see
Section 6.4) so that filtering of source routed packets (type 0)
will not necessarily limit Mobile IPv6 traffic which is delivered
via type 2 routing headers.
I think that these recommendations are generally OK. Indeed, I think
it is a bit unfortunate that those recommendations are hidden within
the MIPv6 spec as opposed to being merged in with the ND spec, but
that isn't something node requirments can address.
Comments?
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative
Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
