draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-05.txt   draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-06.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 29, 2017 Sangmyung University Expires: August 19, 2017 Sangmyung University
X. Lee X. Lee
CNNIC CNNIC
January 25, 2017 February 15, 2017
Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6 Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6
draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-05 draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-06
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 has happened (e.g. due to change of service provider,
HNP renumbering is proposed, as an update of the PMIPv6 change of site topology, etc.). In this document, a solution to
support the 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
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 29, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 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 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 38
is triggered by a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG), which detects the is triggered by a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG), which detects the
attachment of the MN. A scheme is also needed for the LMA to attachment of the MN. A scheme is also needed for the LMA to
immediately initiate the PMIPv6 binding state refreshment during the immediately initiate the PMIPv6 binding state refreshment during the
HNP renumbering process. Although this issue is also mentioned in HNP renumbering process. Although this issue is also mentioned in
Section 6.12 of [RFC5213], the related solution has not been Section 6.12 of [RFC5213], the related solution has not been
specified. specified.
3. PMIPv6 Extensions 3. PMIPv6 Extensions
When the HNP renumbering happens in PMIPv6, the LMA has to notify a When the HNP renumbering happens in PMIPv6, the LMA has to notify a
new HNP to an MAG and then the MAG has to announce the new HNP to the new HNP to a MAG and then the MAG has to announce the new HNP to the
attached MN accordingly. Also, the LMA and the MAG must update the attached MN accordingly. Also, the LMA and the MAG must update the
routing states for the HNP and the related addresses. To support routing states for the HNP and the related addresses. To support
this procedure, [RFC7077] can be adopted which specifies an this procedure, [RFC7077] can be adopted which specifies an
asynchronous update from the LMA to the MAG about specific session asynchronous update from the LMA to the MAG about specific session
parameters. This document considers the following two cases: parameters. This document considers the following two cases:
(1) HNP is renumbered under the same LMA (1) HNP is renumbered under the same LMA
In this case, the LMA remains unchanged as in the scenario 1 and In this case, the LMA remains unchanged as in the scenario 1 and
scenario 3. The operation steps are shown in Figure 1. scenario 3. The operation steps are shown in Figure 1.
skipping to change at page 7, line 6 skipping to change at page 7, line 6
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.
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 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 to the MN. The LMA must follow the procedure of PMIPv6 to make sure
that only an authorized HNP can be assigned for the MN. In this way, 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 LMA is ready to be the topological anchor point of the new HNP and
the new HNP is for that MN's exclusive use. 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
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
8 lines changed or deleted 9 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/