Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08

But you have that problem with IP addresses as well, right? I don't see how
"assigning a prefix with certain properties" requires more state in the
network than "assigning an IP address with certain properties".

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Peter McCann <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Providing any kind of mobility service for a prefix will require some
> state somewhere in the network.  It would be great to avoid an allocation
> request / response for the prefix, but the state has to be created somehow
> before the UE can use the prefix and it has to be reclaimed eventually
> after the UE stops using the prefix (which may not be until well after it
> disconnects from the current link and moves to another one).
>
>
>
> Would welcome any suggestions on how to manage this state.
>
>
>
> -Pete
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dmm [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Lorenzo Colitti
> *Sent:* Friday, December 02, 2016 12:04 PM
> *To:* jouni.nospam <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I like the goal of reducing network cost by allowing the use of IP
> addresses that do not require network mobility, but we should not be doing
> this by requesting IP addresses from the network, because this violates
> IPv6 address assignment best practices.
>
>
>
> Specifically, RFC 7934 recommends that a) the network should provide
> multiple addresses from each prefix and b) the network should allow the
> host to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests to the
> network. This is in conflict with at least this text in the draft, which
> says:
>
>
>
>    In case an application
>
>    requests one, the IP stack shall make an attempt to configure one by
>
>    issuing a request to the network.  If the operation fails, the IP
>
>    stack shall fail the associated socket request
>
>
>
> One way to resolve this conflict would be to say that the network must not
> assign individual addresses, but /64 (or shorter) prefixes. So if the
> device desires to use fixed IPv6 addresses, then the network should give
> the host a fixed IPv6 prefix from which the host can form as many addresses
> as it wants.
>
>
>
> I do not think we should advance this document until the conflicts are
> resolved. This document is about IPv6 address assignment to mobile nodes,
> and we should not publish a document about IPv6 address assignment that
> conflicts with best current practices on IPv6 address assignment.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM, jouni.nospam <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> The authors of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07
> and draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source have come up with a merged
> document draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08.
>
>
>
> This email starts a 2 week WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08.
>
> The WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16.
>
>
>
> Provide your comments, concerns and approvals to the email list (and
> hopefully also to IssueTracker).
>
>
>
> - Jouni & Dapeng
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *IETF Secretariat <[email protected]>
>
> *Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility*
>
> *Date: *November 28, 2016 at 12:51:34 PM PST
>
> *To: *<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>
>
> *Resent-From: *<[email protected]>
>
> *Resent-To: *[email protected], [email protected]
>
>
>
>
> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility has been changed to
> "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Jouni Korhonen:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility/
>
>
> Comment:
> WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm