Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible? draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:48:13 -0500

Hi Alex,

Thanks for bringing this issue up :-).

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> NETEXT WG members,
>
> It was said at times that PMIP-NEMO is impossible.  PMIP is a core
> network protocol, where mobility is supported without modifying the MN.
>
> Or, in some PMIP-NEMO proposals, the MN _is_ modified: for example it
> adds DHCP Client on it; or other times it performs HNP Division.
>
> BEcause of this there exist statements that PMIP-NEMO is impossible.
>
> Do you think there are other reasons why PMIP-NEMO is impossible?
>

Basically, Nemo requires an MR. MR must be placed at the PMIP MN. This
is the fundamental problem. I don't think it is possible to make an MR
without changing MN. So far I have not seen any solutions.

You are talking about a protocol that is designed to not to modify MN.

> Do you think that running DHCP Client on MN is a modification to MN?
>

Standard clients are OK.

The problem with the WG draft is that it requires an DHCP client
extended with PD.

I would like draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps to be revised with
a discussion of this fundamental problem in PMIP-Nemo.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:03:43 +0100

Hi Behcet,

See inline [SJ].

Regards,

Seil

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 7:48 PM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?
draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps

Hi Alex,

> Do you think there are other reasons why PMIP-NEMO is impossible?

Basically, Nemo requires an MR. MR must be placed at the PMIP MN. This is
the fundamental problem. I don't think it is possible to make an MR without
changing MN. So far I have not seen any solutions.

[SJ] In my knowledge, an MN doesn't need to be changed if the MR acts as a
moving MAG, which has the responsibility of MN detection i.e. MN's attach
and detach, and sending/receiving PBU/PBA instead of the MN. Regarding on
this issue, it was described at the Paris meeting I remember.

Standard clients are OK.

The problem with the WG draft is that it requires an DHCP client extended
with PD.

I would like draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps to be revised with a
discussion of this fundamental problem in PMIP-Nemo.

Regards,

Behcet
_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:45 -0500

Hi Seil,

MR as mobile MAG could work.
Is there a draft on this?

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:59:27 +0100

Hi Behcet,

No draft but magazine journal.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2009.4939291

Regards,

Seil

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:22 PM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?

Hi Seil,

Regards,

Behcet

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Seil Jeon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
> [SJ] In my knowledge, an MN doesn't need to be changed if the MR acts 
> as a moving MAG, which has the responsibility of MN detection i.e. 
> MN's attach and detach, and sending/receiving PBU/PBA instead of the 
> MN. Regarding on this issue, it was described at the Paris meeting I
remember.

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:44:30 +1000

>this issue, it was described at the Paris meeting I remember.

=> Moving MAG = MR in RFC 3963 basically. So it's not PMIP anymore it's
normal MIPv6. 

Hesham

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:07:30 +0100

Hi Hesham,

Regards,

Seil

-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 5:45 AM
To: Seil Jeon; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?

>as a moving MAG, which has the responsibility of MN detection i.e. MN's 
>attach and detach, and sending/receiving PBU/PBA instead of the MN. 
>Regarding on this issue, it was described at the Paris meeting I remember.

[SJ] Moving MAG is not a MR defined in RFC 3963. See above how I defined the
moving MAG.

Hesham

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:14:52 +1000

>[SJ] Moving MAG is not a MR defined in RFC 3963. See above how I defined

=> Apart from calling it a PBU, as opposed to a BU, what is the real
difference between a moving MAG and MR?
Ironically, people called the Prefix Binding Updates PBUs in early
discussions of NEMO.

Are you saying it sends one BU per address, as opposed to one BU for the
entire prefix? If so, why? a prefix BU is much more efficient. That would
just be a less efficient version of MIP-based MRs.

Hesham

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 01:03:52 +0100

Hi Hesham,

Regards,

Seil

-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:15 PM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?

>>MN's attach and detach, and sending/receiving PBU/PBA instead of the MN.
>[SJ] Moving MAG is not a MR defined in RFC 3963. See above how I 
>defined the moving MAG.

[SJ] It sounds to me what is difference between HA - MN (MIPv6 client) and
LMA - MAG. PBU is meant to be Proxy Binding Update as defined in RFC 5213.

[SJ] Actually, there's no standard draft yet for PMIP-NEMO we're discussing.
Protocol designs for MR would be varied depending on the design perspective.
But one example could be as follows. Moving MAG would attach to PMIPv6
domain and have unique prefix assigned from a LMA. For attaching and
detaching mobile node, moving MAG should send PBU instead of MN
individually. However, in the case of mobile network's moving, PBU sent by a
MAG detecting mMAG's attachment to a LMA would be enough. Moving MAG doesn't
need to send anything for network moving event itself. Following extended
LMA binding cache entry can be an example.
When the LMA receives PBU sent by the MAG regarding on moving MAG attachment
(MAG1 -> MAG2), it only changes tunnel endpoint of mMAG to MAG 2 and doesn't
need to touch MNs' entries belonging to mMAG.

ID		Prefix		AR		M flag
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mMAG 1	Pref1::/64	MAG 2	no
MN 1		Pref2::/64	mMAG 1	yes

Actually, the above might be one example among many possible ways .. and
it's not my idea. FYI, you can see following.
I just wanted to describe possibility of PMIPv6-NEMO support using moving
MAG.

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:42:53 +1000

>need to touch MNs' entries belonging to mMAG.

=> Doesn't sound like something you would deploy on shared links, but I
guess that's a generic statement for PMIP.
Anyway, lets see when a draft is proposed.

Hesham

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:03:56 +0100

Hi Hesham,

Regards,

Seil

-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?

>individually. However, in the case of mobile network's moving, PBU sent 
>by a MAG detecting mMAG's attachment to a LMA would be enough. Moving 
>MAG doesn't need to send anything for network moving event itself. 
>Following extended LMA binding cache entry can be an example.
>(MAG1 -> MAG2), it only changes tunnel endpoint of mMAG to MAG 2 and 
>doesn't need to touch MNs' entries belonging to mMAG.

[SJ] Yes, the given example was not based on shared link. For shared link
support, we may check another way.

>Actually, the above might be one example among many possible ways .. 
>and it's not my idea. FYI, you can see following.
>I just wanted to describe possibility of PMIPv6-NEMO support using 
>moving MAG.
>