Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko |
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Stephen Farrell |
2012-04-24
|
06 | Brian Haberman | Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman from Jari Arkko |
2012-01-23
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-01-20
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2012-01-20
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-01-20
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-01-20
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-01-17
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-01-09
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-01-06
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-01-06
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2012-01-05
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Approval announcement text changed |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup text changed |
2012-01-04
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup text changed |
2012-01-03
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed. |
2011-12-15
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-06.txt |
2011-12-15
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-12-15
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-12-15
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-13
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-05.txt |
2011-12-13
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Setting stream while adding document to the tracker |
2011-12-13
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Stream changed to IETF from |
2011-12-13
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-12-15 |
2011-12-13
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2011-12-13
|
06 | Jari Arkko | 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 … 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. |
2011-12-11
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2011-12-11
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-04.txt |
2011-10-30
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from Waiting on ADs |
2011-10-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | 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 … 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. |
2011-10-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup. |
2011-10-20
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [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 … [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. |
2011-10-20
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-10-20
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-10-20
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Holding a discuss until the address type that is allocated is decided. Ongoing discussion on the 6man WG mailing list. |
2011-10-20
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2011-10-20
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Holding a discuss until the address type that is allocated is decided. Ongoing discussion on the 6man WG mailing list. |
2011-10-19
|
06 | Amanda Baber | 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 … 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. |
2011-10-19
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-10-19
|
06 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-10-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | 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 … 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. |
2011-10-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-10-20 |
2011-10-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued |
2011-10-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-10-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-10-17
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-09-23
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from In Progress |
2011-09-19
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2011-09-19
|
06 | Amy Vezza | 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 … 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. |
2011-09-19
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last Call text changed |
2011-09-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Last Call was requested |
2011-09-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-09-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Last Call text changed |
2011-09-18
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Informational |
2011-09-16
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to AD Evaluation from RFC Ed Queue. |
2011-09-13
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-09-12
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2011-09-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-09-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-09-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-09-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-09-12
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-09-08
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-09-08
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-09-08
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-03.txt |
2011-09-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-09-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-09-08
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-07
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-02.txt |
2011-09-07
|
06 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] There seem to be a couple of syntax issues in this text: OLD: The base Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] all … [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, |
2011-09-07
|
06 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-07
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-07
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-06
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Section 1 To address this problem, this specification makes the following two reservations. The mobility elements in the Proxy Mobile … [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. |
2011-09-06
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-06
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-06
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [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 … [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. |
2011-09-06
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2011-09-05
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Strike section 2.1. 2119 is not used in this document. |
2011-09-05
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-05
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-05
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [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 … [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. |
2011-09-05
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2011-09-03
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-09-03
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-08-31
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-08-30
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] I think this is a useful document. It seems like it should have "Updates: RFC 5213" though? |
2011-08-30
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-08-29
|
06 | Amanda Baber | 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 … 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. |
2011-08-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-08-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2011-08-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Ballot has been issued |
2011-08-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-08-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-09-08 |
2011-08-26
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-08-14
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
2011-08-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-01.txt |
2011-08-01
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2011-08-01
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2011-07-29
|
06 | Amy Vezza | 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 … 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. |
2011-07-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Last Call was requested |
2011-07-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2011-07-29
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Last Call text changed |
2011-07-29
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-07-29
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-07-29
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-07-28
|
06 | Jari Arkko | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-07-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-00.txt |