PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement

1
PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement

• draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-01.txt
• Marco Liebsch, Sangjin Jeong, Qin Wu

IETF76 - Hiroshima NetExt WG, 11th November 2009
2
PMIPv6 Localized Routing

• ObjectiveEstablish and maintain (during
  handover) local forwarding of packets for two MNs
  without traversing the MNs LMA(s)

3
Document History

• First draft for BOF discussion _at_ IETF74
• Updated draft _at_ IETF75
• Reflects comments from ML and meeting
• Revised structure
• IPv4 considerations added
• Adopted as WG draft
• First WG draft published Sept 09
• IPv4 considerations condensed and included in
  main problem statement section
• Includes roaming model (more feedback needed)

4
Document History (contd)

• Update in Oct 09
• Removed some IPv4 issues as indicated out of
  scope
• IPv4 address conflict
• NAT issues

5
Common Understanding

• Term Localized Routing agreed
• Use Cases
• Relevant for IPv4
• Support Localized Routing between public IPv4
  HoAs
• Transport network IP version (MAG-MAG)
  pre-configured
• Dynamic negotiation out of scope
• Other IPv4 issues not in PS as out of NetExt
  scope
• Roaming Model more feedback needed
• little more feedback on all these items would
  be good

6
Roaming Model

• Term for definition of scope
• Provider domain (wait, there are more slides)
• MNs and CNs MAG must be in same provider domain
• MNs and CNs LMA can be in different provider
  domains
• MNs MAG and MNs LMA must build a PMIPv6 domain
• CNs MAG and CNs LMA must build a PMIPv6 domain
• No assumption about whether or notMNs MAG and
  CNs LMA build a PMIPv6 domain

7
Roaming Model (contd)

• Case 1

LMA2
LMA1
LMA2
Relevant MAGsfor Localized Routing
MAG1
MAG2
A
B
C
MAG1
MAG2
8
Roaming Model (contd)

• Case 2

LMA2
LMA1
LMA2
MAG1
MAG2
A
B
C
MAG1
MAG2
9
Roaming Model (contd)

• Case 3

LMA2
LMA1
LMA2
MAG1
MAG2
A
B
C
MAG1
MAG2
10
Roaming Model (contd)

• Case 4

LMA2
LMA1
LMA2
MAG1
MAG2
A
B
C
MAG1
MAG2
11
Next

• Agree on all in-scope problems
• Publish update asap after IETF76
• Consider comments from Mohana and Glen
• More comments?
• Approach WG last call asap