1 / 11

PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement

PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement. draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-01.txt Marco Liebsch, Sangjin Jeong, Qin Wu. IETF76 - Hiroshima NetExt WG, 11 th November 2009. PMIPv6 Localized Routing.

dyami
Download Presentation

PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-01.txt Marco Liebsch, Sangjin Jeong, Qin Wu IETF76 - Hiroshima NetExt WG, 11th November 2009

  2. PMIPv6 Localized Routing • Objective:Establish and maintain (during handover) local forwarding of packets for two MNs without traversing the MNs’ LMA(s)

  3. Document History • First draft for BOF discussion @ IETF74 • Updated draft @ IETF75 • Reflects comments from ML and meeting • Revised structure • IPv4 considerations added • Adopted as WG draft • First WG draft published Sept ’09 • IPv4 considerations condensed and included in main problem statement section • Includes roaming model (more feedback needed)

  4. Document History (cont’d) • Update in Oct ‘09 • Removed some IPv4 issues as indicated out of scope • IPv4 address conflict • NAT issues

  5. Common Understanding…* • Term: Localized Routing agreed • Use Cases • Relevant for IPv4: • Support Localized Routing between public IPv4 HoAs • Transport network IP version (MAG-MAG) pre-configured • Dynamic negotiation out of scope • Other IPv4 issues not in PS as out of NetExt scope • Roaming Model … more feedback needed * little more feedback on all these items would be good

  6. Roaming Model • Term for definition of scope: • Provider domain (…wait, there are more slides…) • MN’s and CN’s MAG must be in same provider domain • MN’s and CN’s LMA can be in different provider domains • MN’s MAG and MN’s LMA must build a PMIPv6 domain • CN’s MAG and CN’s LMA must build a PMIPv6 domain • No assumption about whether or notMN’s MAG and CN’s LMA build a PMIPv6 domain

  7. Roaming Model (cont’d) • Case 1 LMA2* LMA1 LMA2 Relevant MAGsfor Localized Routing MAG1 MAG2 A B C MAG1* MAG2*

  8. Roaming Model (cont’d) • Case 2 LMA2* LMA1 LMA2 MAG1 MAG2 A B C MAG1* MAG2*

  9. Roaming Model (cont’d) • Case 3 LMA2* LMA1 LMA2 MAG1 MAG2 A B C MAG1* MAG2*

  10. Roaming Model (cont’d) • Case 4 LMA2* LMA1 LMA2 MAG1 MAG2 A B C MAG1* MAG2*

  11. Next • Agree on all “in-scope problems” • Publish update asap after IETF76 • Consider comments from Mohana and Glen • More comments? • Approach WG last call asap

More Related