1 / 5

NETEXT WG IETF 82

NETEXT WG IETF 82. Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 RFC5149bis WEDNESDAY, November 16, 2011 Jouni Korhonen. Background. RFC5149 was defined for RFC6275 (MIPv6) and RFC5213 (PMIPv6). There are known implementations for PMIPv6 ( yes, live deployments and multiple vendors).

romeo
Download Presentation

NETEXT WG IETF 82

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. NETEXT WGIETF 82 Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 RFC5149bis WEDNESDAY, November 16, 2011 JouniKorhonen

  2. Background • RFC5149 was defined for RFC6275 (MIPv6) and RFC5213 (PMIPv6). • There are known implementations for PMIPv6 (yes, live deployments and multiple vendors). • RFC5149 has few areas that the authors think need enhancing & clarifications. • RFC5149 is Informational, however the authors feel it should already be Standards Track.

  3. RFC5149bis – change summary • Echoing the Service Selection option in (P)BAs– this is what running code does. • Updates to RFC5213 BCE lookup considerations. The Service Selection is used as one lookup key – this is what running code does. • New Status Code: MISSING_OR_UNKNOWN_SERVICE. • Different from SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED, which is not a good for a case where the requested service is not known the HA & LMA – this is what running code does. • Updating the document category from Informational to Standards Track. • Multiple implementations, deployed, operation experience, ...

  4. For [discussion] • Some deployments encode the Service Selection Identifier field using RFC1035 style domain name encoding.. should that be described somehow? Current“standard” encoding is UTF-8. • How to extend Identifier with an additional “index” for a case where: • The same service is accessed multiple times using the same Identifier name to configure multiple prefixes; example 2x “Internet”. The index allows to distinguish between “services” when prefix is not available (handoff). • This was proposed at the early stages of RFC5149 but removed. However, it isnot trivial to add such “index” now (backward compatibility). • Existing deployments have such but those chose not to “decorate” the Identifier and instead useRFC5094 VSMs.

  5. Questions & Next Steps • Adopt as a WG document?

More Related