Interactions between Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6): Scenarios and Related Issues
RFC 6612

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues'
  (draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-07.txt) as an Informational RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions/

Technical Summary

   The Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification in RFC 5213 describes
   network based mobility management for IPv6 hosts across IPv6
   network domains.  This document describes the possible
   interactions between Proxy Mobile IPv6 and Mobile IPv6.  It
   provides some guidelines on the best practices to use when
   combining these two protocols to provide mobility for end hosts.

Working Group Summary

  This is a product of the NETLMM WG. There is a consensus in the WG
  for publication as an informational RFC.

  There have been some disagreements on the approach used to solve the
  collocated LMA and HA case in the document.  The present approach uses
  logically separate binding cache entries for the LMA and HA, which is
  based on consensus.  Some members of the WG strongly preferred the 
  approach of having the same binding cache entry for the LMA and HA - 
  however, the approach needed additional solutions to address race 
  conditions that arose from it and it did not gain consensus in the WG.
  It should be noted that this was not raised by anyone in the WG during
  WGLC of the document and the document as a whole had strong consensus
  to be published.

Document Quality

  The document has gone through various reviews and a successful
  WGLC.

Personnel

  Responsible AD is Jari Arkko and the document shepherd is
  Vidya Narayanan.

RFC Editor Note

  Change in section 3.1: s/regardless/regardless of/

  Section 3.2, list item 3: s/access when/access where/

  Section 3.2:
  Reword "delay in the mobility signaling sent
  may imply adverse situations"; maybe "delay in the receipt
  mobility signaling may result in undesirable situations"?

  In section 3.2, in the last bullet of list item 4:
  OLD:
   Based on this consideration, the threat described in [RFC4832] is
   worse as it affects also hosts that are using the LMA/HA as MIPv6 HA
   and are not using PMIPv6.
  NEW:
   Based on this consideration, the threat described in [RFC4832]
   becomes more critical with simultaneous use of PMIPv6 and MIPv6,
   as the threat affects also hosts that are using the LMA/HA through
   MIPv6 only.