draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-01.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02.txt 
DMM Working Group Z. Yan DMM Working Group Z. Yan
Internet-Draft CNNIC Internet-Draft CNNIC
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lee Intended status: Standards Track J. Lee
Expires: November 21, 2016 Sangmyung University Expires: November 21, 2016 Sangmyung University
X. Lee X. Lee
CNNIC CNNIC
May 20, 2016 May 20, 2016
Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6 Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6
draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-01 draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02
Abstract Abstract
In the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification, a Mobile Node In the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification, a Mobile Node
(MN) is assigned with a 64-bit Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its (MN) is assigned with a 64-bit Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its
initial attachment for the Home Address (HoA) configuration. During initial attachment for the Home Address (HoA) configuration. During
the movement of the MN, this prefix remains unchanged and in this way the movement of the MN, this prefix remains unchanged and in this way
it is unnecessary for the MN to reconfigure its HoA and reconnect the it is unnecessary for the MN to reconfigure its HoA and reconnect the
ongoing communications. However, the current protocol [RFC5213] does ongoing communications. However, the current PMIPv6 specification
not specify related operations to support the MN to timely receive does not specify related operations to support the MN to timely
and use a new HNP when the allocated HNP changes. In this draft, a receive and use a new HNP when the allocated HNP changes. In this
solution to support the HNP renumbering is proposed, as an update of draft, a solution to support the HNP renumbering is proposed, as an
[RFC5213]. update of the PMIPv6 specification.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Usage scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Usage scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. PMIPv6 extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PMIPv6 extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Session connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Session connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Message format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Message format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Other issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Other issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Network managers currently prefer Provider Independent (PI) Network managers currently prefer Provider Independent (PI)
addressing for IPv6 to attempt to minimize the need for future addressing for IPv6 to attempt to minimize the need for future
possible renumbering. However, widespread use of PI addresses may possible renumbering. However, widespread use of PI addresses may
cause Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) scaling problems. It is thus cause Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) scaling problems. It is thus
desirable to develop tools and practices that may make IPv6 desirable to develop tools and practices that may make IPv6
renumbering a simpler process to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space renumbering a simpler process to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
(1) UPN message (1) UPN message
In the UPN message sent from the LMA to the MAG, the notification In the UPN message sent from the LMA to the MAG, the notification
reason is set to 2 (UPDATE-SESSION-PARAMETERS). Besides, the HNP reason is set to 2 (UPDATE-SESSION-PARAMETERS). Besides, the HNP
option containing the new HNP and the Mobile Node Identifier option option containing the new HNP and the Mobile Node Identifier option
carrying Identifier of MN are contained as Mobility Options of UPN. carrying Identifier of MN are contained as Mobility Options of UPN.
(2) RA Message (2) RA Message
When the RA message is used by the MAG to advise the new HNP, two When the RA message is used by the MAG to advise the new HNP, two
Prefix Information options are contained in the RA message [RFC2461]. Prefix Information options are contained in the RA message [RFC4861].
In the first Prefix Information option, the old HNP is carried but In the first Prefix Information option, the old HNP is carried but
both the related Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime are set to 0. both the related Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime are set to 0.
In the second Prefix Information option, the new HNP is carried with In the second Prefix Information option, the new HNP is carried with
the Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime set to larger than 0. the Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime set to larger than 0.
(3) DHCP Message (3) DHCP Message
When the DHCP is used in PMIPv6 to configure the HoA for the MN, a When the DHCP is used in PMIPv6 to configure the HoA for the MN, a
new IPv6 HoA is generated based on the new HNP. Trigged by the UPN new IPv6 HoA is generated based on the new HNP. Trigged by the UPN
message, the MAG will request the new HoA from the DHCP server first message, the MAG will request the new HoA from the DHCP server first
skipping to change at page 6, line 32 skipping to change at page 6, line 32
System (DNS) resource record corresponding to this MN may need to be System (DNS) resource record corresponding to this MN may need to be
updated when the HNP of MN changes [RFC3007]. However, this is out updated when the HNP of MN changes [RFC3007]. However, this is out
the scope of this draft. the scope of this draft.
7. Security considerations 7. Security considerations
This extension causes no further security problem. The security This extension causes no further security problem. The security
considerations in [RFC5213] and [RFC7077] are enough for the basic considerations in [RFC5213] and [RFC7077] are enough for the basic
operation of this draft. operation of this draft.
8. Normative References 8. IANA Considerations
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor This document presents no IANA considerations.
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998, 9. References
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2461>.
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic [RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
Update", RFC 3007, DOI 10.17487/RFC3007, November 2000, Update", RFC 3007, DOI 10.17487/RFC3007, November 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3007>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3007>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>. 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC6058] Liebsch, M., Ed., Muhanna, A., and O. Blume, "Transient
Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6058,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6058, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6058>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6463] Korhonen, J., Ed., Gundavelli, S., Yokota, H., and X. Cui, [RFC6463] Korhonen, J., Ed., Gundavelli, S., Yokota, H., and X. Cui,
"Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support "Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support
for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6463, DOI 10.17487/RFC6463, for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6463, DOI 10.17487/RFC6463,
February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6463>. February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6463>.
[RFC6879] Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise
Network Renumbering Scenarios, Considerations, and
Methods", RFC 6879, DOI 10.17487/RFC6879, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6879>.
[RFC7077] Krishnan, S., Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., Yokota, H., and [RFC7077] Krishnan, S., Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., Yokota, H., and
J. Korhonen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6", J. Korhonen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 7077, DOI 10.17487/RFC7077, November 2013, RFC 7077, DOI 10.17487/RFC7077, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7077>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7077>.
Authors' Addresses 9.2. Informative References
[RFC6058] Liebsch, M., Ed., Muhanna, A., and O. Blume, "Transient
Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6058,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6058, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6058>.
[RFC6879] Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise
Network Renumbering Scenarios, Considerations, and
Methods", RFC 6879, DOI 10.17487/RFC6879, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6879>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhiwei Yan Zhiwei Yan
CNNIC CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Beijing 100190 Beijing 100190
China China
EMail: yan@cnnic.cn EMail: yan@cnnic.cn
Jong-Hyouk Lee Jong-Hyouk Lee
Sangmyung University Sangmyung University
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 41 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/