Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6
draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dmm WG)
Last updated 2017-06-26 (latest revision 2017-03-14)
Replaces draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Dapeng Liu
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-11-01)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Suresh Krishnan
Send notices to "Dapeng Liu" <max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IC
RFC Editor RFC Editor state RFC-EDITOR
DMM Working Group                                                 Z. Yan
Internet-Draft                                                     CNNIC
Intended status: Standards Track                                  J. Lee
Expires: September 14, 2017                         Sangmyung University
                                                                  X. Lee
                                                                   CNNIC
                                                          March 13, 2017

               Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6
                       draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-07

Abstract

   In the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification, a Mobile Node
   (MN) is assigned with a Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its initial
   attachment and the MN configures its Home Address (HoA) with the HNP.
   During the movement of the MN, the HNP remains unchanged to keep
   ongoing communications associated with the HoA.  However, the current
   PMIPv6 specification does not specify related operations when an HNP
   renumbering has happened (e.g. due to change of service provider,
   change of site topology, etc.).  In this document, a solution to
   support the HNP renumbering is proposed, as an optional extension of
   the PMIPv6 specification.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL","SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.

Yan, et al.            Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           PMIPv6 HNP Renumbering               March 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  HNP Renumbering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Session Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Other Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Network managers currently prefer Provider Independent (PI)
   addressing for IPv6 to attempt to minimize the need for future
   possible renumbering.  However, a widespread use of PI addresses will
   cause Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) scaling problems [RFC7010].  It
   is thus desirable to develop tools and practices that make IPv6
   renumbering a simpler process to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space
   [RFC6879].  In this document, we aim to solve the HNP renumbering
   problem when the HNP in PMIPv6 [RFC5213] is a PI prefix.

2.  Usage Scenarios

   There are a number of reasons why the HNP renumbering support in
   PMIPv6 is useful and some scenarios are identified below:
Show full document text