Hi Raj: Please see inline.
On 12/13/11 1:12 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 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. > 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. > 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. Regards Sri > -Basavaraj > > On 12/13/11 2:50 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> 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 >> [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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
