draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-03.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-04.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: January 2, 2017 Sangmyung University Expires: July 9, 2017 Sangmyung University
X. Lee X. Lee
CNNIC CNNIC
July 1, 2016 January 5, 2017
Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6 Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6
draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-04
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 Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its initial (MN) is assigned with a Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its initial
attachment and the MN configures its Home Address (HoA) with the HNP. attachment and the MN configures its Home Address (HoA) with the HNP.
During the movement of the MN, the HNP is remained unchanged to keep During the movement of the MN, the HNP remains unchanged to keep
ongoing communications associated with the HoA. However, the current ongoing communications associated with the HoA. However, the current
PMIPv6 specification does not specify related operations when an HNP PMIPv6 specification does not specify related operations when an HNP
renumbering is happened. In this document, a solution to support the renumbering is happened. In this document, a solution to support the
HNP renumbering is proposed, as an update of the PMIPv6 HNP renumbering is proposed, as an update of the PMIPv6
specification. 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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, a widespread use of PI addresses may possible renumbering. However, a widespread use of PI addresses may
cause Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) scaling problems. It is thus cause Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) scaling problems [RFC7010]. It
desirable to develop tools and practices that make IPv6 renumbering a is thus desirable to develop tools and practices that make IPv6
simpler process to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space [RFC6879]. In renumbering a simpler process to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space
this document, we aim to solve the HNP renumbering problem when the [RFC6879]. In this document, we aim to solve the HNP renumbering
HNP in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] is not the type of PI. problem when the HNP in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] is not the type of PI.
2. Usage Scenarios 2. Usage Scenarios
There are a number of reasons why the HNP renumbering support in There are a number of reasons why the HNP renumbering support in
PMIPv6 is useful and some scenarios are identified below: PMIPv6 is useful and some scenarios are identified below:
o Scenario 1: the HNP set used by a PMIPv6 service provider is o Scenario 1: the HNP set used by a PMIPv6 service provider is
assigned by a different Internet Service Provider (ISP), and then assigned by a different Internet Service Provider (ISP), and then
the HNP renumbering may happen if the PMIPv6 service provider the HNP renumbering may happen if the PMIPv6 service provider
switches to a different ISP. switches to a different ISP.
skipping to change at page 6, line 48 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
new HNP and the related DHCP procedure is also triggered by the new HNP and the related DHCP procedure is also triggered by the
reception of UPN message [RFC3315]. reception of UPN message [RFC3315].
6. Other Issues 6. Other Issues
In order to maintain the reachability of the MN, the Domain Name In order to maintain the reachability of the MN, the Domain Name
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 updated when the HNP of MN changes [RFC3007]. However, this is
beyond the scope of this document. beyond the scope of this document.
The LMA must assign only an authorized HNP for the MN.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The protection of UPN and UPA messages in this document follows The protection of UPN and UPA messages in this document follows
[RFC5213] and [RFC7077]. This extension causes no further security [RFC5213] and [RFC7077]. This extension thus causes no further
problem. security problems for protecting of the messages.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document presents no IANA considerations. This document presents no IANA considerations.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 8, line 22 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
[RFC6058] Liebsch, M., Ed., Muhanna, A., and O. Blume, "Transient [RFC6058] Liebsch, M., Ed., Muhanna, A., and O. Blume, "Transient
Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6058, Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6058,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6058, March 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6058, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6058>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6058>.
[RFC6879] Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise [RFC6879] Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise
Network Renumbering Scenarios, Considerations, and Network Renumbering Scenarios, Considerations, and
Methods", RFC 6879, DOI 10.17487/RFC6879, February 2013, Methods", RFC 6879, DOI 10.17487/RFC6879, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6879>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6879>.
[RFC7010] Liu, B., Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., Venaas, S., and W.
George, "IPv6 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis", RFC 7010,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7010, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7010>.
Authors' Addresses 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
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
14 lines changed or deleted 21 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/