--- 1/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-01.txt 2016-05-20 20:15:59.384534267 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02.txt 2016-05-20 20:15:59.404534775 -0700 @@ -1,40 +1,40 @@ DMM Working Group Z. Yan Internet-Draft CNNIC Intended status: Standards Track J. Lee Expires: November 21, 2016 Sangmyung University X. Lee CNNIC May 20, 2016 Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6 - draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-01 + draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02 Abstract In the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification, a Mobile Node (MN) is assigned with a 64-bit Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its initial attachment for the Home Address (HoA) configuration. During the movement of the MN, this prefix remains unchanged and in this way it is unnecessary for the MN to reconfigure its HoA and reconnect the - ongoing communications. However, the current protocol [RFC5213] does - not specify related operations to support the MN to timely receive - and use a new HNP when the allocated HNP changes. In this draft, a - solution to support the HNP renumbering is proposed, as an update of - [RFC5213]. + ongoing communications. However, the current PMIPv6 specification + does not specify related operations to support the MN to timely + receive and use a new HNP when the allocated HNP changes. In this + draft, a solution to support the HNP renumbering is proposed, as an + update 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 RFC 2119. + 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/. @@ -63,21 +63,24 @@ Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Usage scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. PMIPv6 extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Session connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Message format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Other issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction Network managers currently prefer Provider Independent (PI) addressing for IPv6 to attempt to minimize the need for future possible renumbering. However, widespread use of PI addresses may cause Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) scaling problems. It is thus desirable to develop tools and practices that may make IPv6 renumbering a simpler process to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space @@ -226,21 +229,21 @@ (1) UPN message In the UPN message sent from the LMA to the MAG, the notification reason is set to 2 (UPDATE-SESSION-PARAMETERS). Besides, the HNP option containing the new HNP and the Mobile Node Identifier option carrying Identifier of MN are contained as Mobility Options of UPN. (2) RA Message When the RA message is used by the MAG to advise the new HNP, two - Prefix Information options are contained in the RA message [RFC2461]. + Prefix Information options are contained in the RA message [RFC4861]. In the first Prefix Information option, the old HNP is carried but both the related Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime are set to 0. In the second Prefix Information option, the new HNP is carried with the Valid Lifetime and Preferred Lifetime set to larger than 0. (3) DHCP Message When the DHCP is used in PMIPv6 to configure the HoA for the MN, a new IPv6 HoA is generated based on the new HNP. Trigged by the UPN message, the MAG will request the new HoA from the DHCP server first @@ -253,67 +256,79 @@ System (DNS) resource record corresponding to this MN may need to be updated when the HNP of MN changes [RFC3007]. However, this is out the scope of this draft. 7. Security considerations This extension causes no further security problem. The security considerations in [RFC5213] and [RFC7077] are enough for the basic operation of this draft. -8. Normative References +8. IANA Considerations - [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor - Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998, - . + This document presents no IANA considerations. + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . [RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update", RFC 3007, DOI 10.17487/RFC3007, November 2000, . [RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July 2003, . + [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, + "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, + . + [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, . - [RFC6058] Liebsch, M., Ed., Muhanna, A., and O. Blume, "Transient - Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6058, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6058, March 2011, - . - [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 2011, . [RFC6463] Korhonen, J., Ed., Gundavelli, S., Yokota, H., and X. Cui, "Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6463, DOI 10.17487/RFC6463, February 2012, . - [RFC6879] Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise - Network Renumbering Scenarios, Considerations, and - Methods", RFC 6879, DOI 10.17487/RFC6879, February 2013, - . - [RFC7077] Krishnan, S., Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., Yokota, H., and J. Korhonen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 7077, DOI 10.17487/RFC7077, November 2013, . -Authors' Addresses +9.2. Informative References + + [RFC6058] Liebsch, M., Ed., Muhanna, A., and O. Blume, "Transient + Binding for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6058, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6058, March 2011, + . + + [RFC6879] Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise + Network Renumbering Scenarios, Considerations, and + Methods", RFC 6879, DOI 10.17487/RFC6879, February 2013, + . +Authors' Addresses Zhiwei Yan CNNIC No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun Beijing 100190 China EMail: yan@cnnic.cn Jong-Hyouk Lee Sangmyung University