Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-06

Sent a question to IANA if they are now happy, a question to WG if this can be approved, and a note to IESG to see if they have any further comments. Placed on agenda and clearing my Discuss.

Decided that the input from me and Margaret is enough to move to the EUI-64 based approach. Asked Sri to issue a new document, and that it should at the same time clear the IANA problems.

[Ballot discuss]
Holding a discuss until the address type that is allocated is decided. Ongoing discussion on the 6man WG mailing list.

Also holding a discuss for IANA's concerns. Once we solve the above, then we can address this as well.

IANA has questions about the IANA actions in this document.

In addition, the IANA Considerations section needs to contain
placeholders for the values to be assigned to ensure that the specific
assignments will be recorded in the RFC itself.

IANA understands that there would be two IANA actions required upon
approval of this document.

First, IANA will reserve an IPv6 interface identifier, specified in the
document as (IANA-TBD1) for Proxy Mobile IPv6. This fixed interface
identifier will be allocated from the Reserved IPv6 Interface
Identifiers registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-interface-ids/ipv6-interface-ids.xml

IANA Question: Is there a specific Interface Identifier Range that the
authors would like to suggest for this purpose?

Second, IANA will reserve a IANA Ethernet unicast address, currently
specified in the document as (IANA-TBD2), for Proxy Mobile IPv6. This
address will be assigned from the IANA Ethernet Address block - Unicast
Use registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers

IANA Question: Is there a specific Ethernet Address block that the
authors would like to suggest for this purpose?

In both cases, the IANA will work with the RFC Editor to ensure that the
chosen and allocated addresses will be documented in the approved,
published document.

IANA understands that these are the only IANA Actions required upon
approval of this document.

The last call ended yesterday. We are fine with going ahead as proposed standard, but there were two other issues raised during discussion.

1. Possible draft to update RFC 5453 / 5342 to say that allocations in either one should not conflict with each other. I tend to agree with Thomas that we are unlikely to see much use of these registries and we should not worry too much about it. That being said, if Suresh finds enough time to write a draft on this I wouldn't mind shepherding it forward. In any case, it is a separate matter from Sri's draft.

2. Whether to allocate an EUI-64 from the IANA block and base the IID on that, or to allocate just a reserved value per RFC 5453. Collisions are extremely unlikely in either case. Personally, I'd prefer an EUI-64 based approach though, because collisions based on random addresses are then ruled out completely, and only manual or multiple MAG type collisions may occur. That is a personal preference though. But we need to choose. Are we going with the draft as is, or changing it to use EUI-64 allocation? I saw Suresh support this approach, Sri had questions (were those answered and what was your conclusion?), what about the rest of you?

In any case, I'm sending the draft to the IESG review.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
  as a
Proposed Standard

This draft is being last called for the second time, as it was discovered late
that allocations from the reserved interface identifier registry need to be
made by Proposed Standard RFCs. In addition, some further review seems
necessary.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] requires all the mobile access gateways
  to use a fixed link-local and link-layer addresses on any of its
  access links that it shares with the mobile nodes.  This was intended
  to ensure a mobile node does not detect any change with respect to
  its layer-3 attachment even after it roams from one mobile access
  gateway to another.  In the absence of any reserved addresses for
  this use, it requires coordination across vendors and the manual
  configuration of these addresses on all the mobility elements in a
  Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  This document attempts to simplify this
  operational requirement by making reservation for special addresses
  that can be used for this purpose and it also updates RFC 5213.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

[Ballot comment]
There seem to be a couple of syntax issues in this text:

OLD:

  The base Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] all though required the use of a
  fixed link-local and a fixed layer-layer address,

NEW:

  Although the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] requires the use of a
  fixed link-local and a fixed link-layer address,

[Ballot comment]
Section 1

  To address this problem, this specification makes the
  following two reservations.  The mobility elements in the Proxy
  Mobile IPv6 domain MAY choose to use these fixed addresses.

Stumbled over this because it looks like the second sentnece is a reservation (i.e. a modification to the base spec), but there is only one reservation listed.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss discuss:

Neither of these allocations could cause a situation where e.g. a
public key certificate for IPsec might require a whole bunch of MAGs
in different domains to share a private key would they?  Or, another
concern might be that these identifiers would allow one MAG to
predend to be someone elses's MAG in a way that a mobile node
coudn't detect. I guess the answer in both cases is "no, there's no
problem," but I just wanted to check.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss discuss:

Neither of these allocations could cause a situation where e.g. a
public key certificate for IPsec might require a whole bunch of MAGs
in different domains to share a private key would they?  Or, another
concern might be that these identifiers would allow one MAG to
predend to be someone elses's MAG in a way that a mobile node
coudn't detect. I guess the answer in both cases is "no, there's no
problem," but I just wanted to check.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
IANA actions which need to be completed.

First, in the Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-interface-ids/ipv6-interface-ids.xml

a new Interface Identifier must be allocated as follows:

Interface Identifier Range: [ tbd ]
Description: Proxy Mobile IPv6
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Date Added: [ tbd ]

Second, in the IANA ETHERNET ADDRESS BLOCK - UNICAST USE subregistry of
the Ether Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers

a new address will be allocated for Proxy Mobile IPv6 as follows:

Dotted Decimal Description Reference
----------------------- -------------------------------- ---------
000.003.000-000.003.255 Proxy Mobile IPv6 [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these are the only actions required upon approval
of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
  as an
Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-08-26. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] requires all the mobile access gateways
  to use a fixed link-local and link-layer addresses on any of its
  access links that it shares with the mobile nodes.  This was intended
  to ensure a mobile node does not detect any change with respect to
  its layer-3 attachment even after it roams from one mobile access
  gateway to another.  In the absence of any reserved addresses for
  this use, it requires coordination across vendors and the manual
  configuration of these addresses on all the mobility elements in a
  Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  This document attempts to simplify this
  operational requirement by making reservation for special addresses
  that can be used for this purpose.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.