draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-04.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-05.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: July 9, 2017 Sangmyung University Expires: July 29, 2017 Sangmyung University
X. Lee X. Lee
CNNIC CNNIC
January 5, 2017 January 25, 2017
Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6 Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6
draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-04 draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-05
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 remains 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
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 July 9, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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
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 thus causes no further [RFC5213] and [RFC7077]. This extension thus causes no further
security problems for protecting of the messages. security problems for protecting of the messages.
When the HNP renumbering is triggered, a new HNP has to be allocated
to the MN. The LMA must follow the proceduer of PMIPv6 to make sure
that only an authorized HNP can be assigned for the MN. In this way,
LMA is ready to be the topological anchor point of the new HNP and
the new HNP is for that MN's exclusive use.
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
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 11 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/