Subject: [netext] Comments on :draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:59:25 +0800

Hi Qin,

Read your ID.  I have few comments.

Please see below.

BR,
Mohana

In abstract, 
"In case the correspondent node is
    connected to another local mobility anchor, the local mobility
    anchors connected by the correspondent node needs to be discovered
    firstly so that it can notify its mobile access gateways attached by
    the correspondent node to the mobile access gateway attached by the 
    mobile node afterwards."

<<<[Mohana] In abstract it is not very clear which entitiy notifies CN's
MAG to MN's MAG. Perhaps a rewording may be useful>>>

In abstract, Mobile access gateways create and refresh bindings 
    using proxy binding update and acknowledgement messages.

<<<[Mohana] What is the reason for this.  Is this refering to PBU to LMA
or PBU to MAG?  Perhaps more clarity on this will help.>>>

In conventions used section it is mentioned

Local routing: Traffic between MN and CN does not pass through LMA
   and is locally routed in the same PMIPv6 domain.

<<<[Mohana] Perhaps a re-wording may be necessary when referring to
PMIPv6 domain. This should be aligned with the PS draft terminology.  It
should be same provider domain running PMIPv6 or some thing like
that.>>>

In conventions used section it is mentioned
Local Routing Optimization Request (LROREQ): A message initiated by
   the MAG or LMA requesting the MAG or LMA to establish local routing
   optimization path between MN and at least one pair of CNs who
   communicate with MN.
<<<[Mohana] why is there reference to at least one pair of CN.  Are u
saying at least a single CN? Not very clear>>>

In section 3 Scenario analysis for PMIPv6 local routing

<<<[Mohana]The text before the figure 1 is refering to PMIPv6 domain.
Again I think this should be single administrative/provider domain
running PMIpv6.>>>

In figure 1, 
<<<[Mohana]the MAG1 is connectedto IPv4 only or IPv4/IPv6 transport to
LMA.>>> 

In last para in section 3 which is
In all the above scenarios, MN is allowed to roam within its PMIPv6
   domain (i.e, MN's home domain in which MN's LMA is located) or move
   from one PMIPv6 domains(i.e., MN's visited domains)to another. CN
   should stay with MN within the same PMIPv6 domain, e.g., MN moves to
   the visited domain to which CN belongs. Another example is MN and CN
   move to the same visited domain to which MN's LMA or CN's LMA does
   not belong.
<<<[Mohana] Here PMIPv6 domain should be chnaged to administrative
domain. Probably re-writing with respect to MN in home or visited domain
and CN inhome or visited domain may be useful.  Currently the text is
not very clear>>>

In section 4, 
<<<[Mohana] the first bullet should be changed to administrative domain
instaed of PMIPv6 domain.  The second bullet says MN and CN attached to
same LMA.  But in section 3 it is mentioned inter LMA scenario as well.
So, I am a bit confused as to whether the solution is not handling inter
LMA scenario.>>>

In section 4.1
 <<<[Mohana] In this section there is reference to three different types
of flags such as intra-LMA local routing flag, intra-MAG local routing
flag, Enable detect local routing flag.  A description of these in
section 2 would be better for easy understanding.>>>

In section 4.1, para 3, it is mentioned After successful local routing
optimization process, if MN and CN
   attach to the different MAGs, i.e., MAG1, MAG2 and intra-LMA
   localrouting flag is set to value one, the MAG1 to which the MN
   attaches may send PBU message to the MAG2 which the CN attaches to.
<<<[Mohana]Here I think there needs to be a rephrasing of sentence.  I
think you are referring to MN connected to MAG 1 and CN connected to
MAG2 and intra LMA flag is set at the MAG and PBU/PBA exchange between
th etwo MAGs.  The sentence is not clear.>>>

In section 4.1, in para 3 it is mentioned that MN's MAG is informed of
CN MAG via LROResponse from LMA (assuming MAG initiated RO) and CN's MAG
is informed of Mn'sMAG via LRO response and both MN's Mag and CN's MAGs
are engaged in bi-ditectional PBU/PBA.

<<<[Mohana]Here I have some comments.
Mn's MAG will do LROReq to LMA. LMA can pass CN's MAG address in new
option.  Then MN's MAG can start PBU with CN's MAG.  But the question I
have is how does CN's MAG create the routing state for MN prefix.  How
does the CN's MAG know that this prefix is owned by MN and MN's MAG is
actually proxying that prefix?
The same when CN's MAG does PBU to MN's MAG.  Probably, after getting
the PBU from MN's MAG, CN's MAG can start PBU with CN's MAG.  But again
to create the the routing state for CN's prefix at MN's MAG the MN's MAG
should know the prefix CN owns is valid prefix. Otherwise, I don't see
how a valid routing state can be created.

So, by reading this I feel a prefix ownership kind of information is
needed in the PBU.>>>

In the handover mechanims in section 4.1.1, it is mentioned that the
nMAG1 will get context from old MAG (pMAG1). 

<<<[Mohana] But the question I have is when nMAG1 does PBU to CN's MAG,
how can CN's MAG know that this prefix of MN is valid and nMAG1 is
proxying the preifx.  Bcos during handoff, the LMA is not involved.
nMAG1 has no issue in knowing that MN;s prefix is given by LMA because
when it does PBU to LMA it will know that this is a valid prefix.  But
that is not the case with CN's MAG.>>>

Also in section 4.1 in second paragraph it is mentioned that MAG can
send LRO req to LMA when Mn and CN are not attached to same MAG. 
<<<[Mohana] In this case, how does MAG know the CN address.  What value
will be attached in the Mn-CN pair mobility option.  Is there some L2
message sent from Mn to MAG and all CN addresses are given in these.
Probably such mentioning will be useful>>>
I have more comments.  But rather than sending all at once I thought I
will stop here for now.

Thanks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 4:30 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> 
> 	Title           : Proxy MIP extension for local routing
optimization
> 	Author(s)       : W. Wu, B. Sarikaya
> 	Filename        : draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 32
> 	Date            : 2009-10-26
> 
> This document extends local routing in proxy Mobile IPv6 and defines
>  a localized routing optimization protocol within one PMIPv6 domain.
>  The protocol supports IPv4 transport network operation, IPv4 home
>  address mobility and handover. The Local mobility anchor/mobile
>  access gateway initiates local routing for the mobile and
>  correspondent node by sending messages to each mobile access
>  gateway/local mobility anchor. In case the correspondent node is
>  connected to another local mobility anchor, the local mobility
>  anchors connected by the correspondent node needs to be discovered
>  firstly so that it can notify its mobile access gateways attached by
>  the correspondent node to the mobile access gateway attached by the
>  mobile node afterwards. Mobile access gateways create and refresh
> bindings
>  using proxy binding update and acknowledgement messages.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:19:25 +0800

Hi, Mohana:
Sorry for my late reply. Also thank you for your review and comments.
please see my reply inline.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Qin Wu" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:59 AM
Subject: Comments on :draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt

Hi Qin,

Please see below.

BR,
Mohana

In abstract, 

[Qin]: Yes, what we are really saying here is CN's LMA will notify CN's MAG to MN's MAG when MN's MAG
communicate with CN's LMA using normal PBU/PBA. Maybe the proper way to say would be
"
so that the discovered local mobility anchor notity its mobile access gateways attached by the correspondent node......
"
In abstract, Mobile access gateways create and refresh bindings 
    using proxy binding update and acknowledgement messages.

[Qin]: Okay, actually PBU/PBA will be used between MAGs to create binding when it is the first time for MAGs to setup localized routing path.
during handover case, PBU/PBA will be used between MAGs to refresh binding.
The reason to create and refresh bindings between MAGs attached by mobile node and correspondent node is quite similar to correspondent registration 
in the Mobile IPv6 Routing optimization between mobile node and correspondent node described in the section 11.7.2 of RFC3775.
i.e., allowing correspondent node to cache mobile node's proxy care-of address or allowing mobile node to cache correspondent node' proxy care-of address,

[Qin]: Okay, will check the wording to be consistent with PS draft.

[Qin]: Right, thank for your good catching and correction.  The reason to say at least one CN is
in some cases, maybe MN will communicate with more than one CN, in this sense, LROREQ
message may be sent from MN's LMA to each MAGs attached by serveral CNs which is communicating with MN.
or sent from MN's MAG to each LMA which is registered by more than one CNs which is communicating with MN during inter-LMA handover case.

[Qin]: Okay.

In figure 1, 

[Qin]: I am okay with this change in the figure 1.

[Qin]: Agree there is room for improvement here, this paragraph will be reworded in accordance with the 
terminologies used in the PS draft

In section 4, 

[Qin]: Yes, inter LMA scenario will be handled in one separate section of our Solution I-D. Our solution I-D mainly focuses on specifying the localize drouting protocol based on the first two scenarios described in the section 3. the common aspect of the first two scenarios is it does not  require PMIP6 mobility entities discovery described in the PS draft. As regarding to the inter-LMA local routing scenario, it depends on PMIP6 mobility entities discovery, extra extended PMIP6 signaling is required between MN's MAG and CN's LMA. Therefore inter-LMA local routing case is separated from section 4 which is concentrating on the first two scenarios and addressed in the independent section, i.e., section 7.

In section 4.1

[Qin]: Okay. Thank for your suggestion.

[Qin]: Okay, maybe we could say:
"
MAG1 to which the MN is connected may send PBU message to the MAG2 to which the CN
is connected.
"

[Qin]: My understanding is if CN's MAG trusts MN's MAG, then CN's MAG must 
believe the prefix sent from MN's MAG is owned by MN. Because MN's MAG can 
check whether prefix is ownd by MN and used to create a valid routing before it send the prefix to the CN's MAG. That is to say we can assume 
there is a trust relationship between MN's MAG and CN's MAG. In oder for this, two possible ways in my mind are, 
1) we assume a prior agreement between MN's MAG and CN's MAG.
2) the second way is we use IPSEC to setup Security association between MN's MAG and CN's MAG.
By these two ways mentioned above, we can have trust relationship between MAGs, But what if MN's MAG establish trust relationship with CN's MAG and send the forged MN's prefix to CN's MAG, I think the prefix ownership validation may be useful in this scenario to help create valid routing state at CN's MAGs 
Therefore I would like to address this security threat in our solution I-D.Thanks for your good points.

[Qin]: Good question, when MN hands over from pMAG1 to nMAG1 and keeps on communication with CN, there is no trust relationship beforehand between nMAG1 and MAG2 to which CN is connected.  That is true. But I think MN's prefix will keep unchanged during handover. The only change to MN is MN's Proxy CoA will . Is it necessary/mandatory to ask CN's MAG to validate MN's prefix ownership each time MN hands over? In my understanding, prefix ownership validation can be understood as routing reachability test(RRT) procedure defined in the RFC3775. But I am not sure RRT procedure will be done each time MN hands over according to RFC3775.

[Qin]: How MAG know the CN address actually is beyond scope of this solution I-D. The possible way is MAG may look at data packet' destination address to know CN address.For the case where one MN communicates with one CN, MN-CN pair mobility option may include one MN's info and one CN's info. MN's. For the case where one MN communciates with several CNs, MN-CN pair mobility option may include one MN's info and several CNs' info.

I have more comments.  But rather than sending all at once I thought I will stop here for now.

Thanks.

optimization

---

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:10:50 +0800

Hi Qin,

Thanks for reply.  Please see some replies in-line.

BR,
Mohana

> From: Qin Wu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: Mohana Jeyatharan
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Comments on :draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt
> 
> Hi, Mohana:
> [Qin]: Yes, what we are really saying here is CN's LMA will notify
CN's
> MAG to MN's MAG when MN's MAG
> communicate with CN's LMA using normal PBU/PBA. Maybe the proper way
to
> say would be
> "
> so that the discovered local mobility anchor notity its mobile access
> gateways attached by the correspondent node......
> "
[Mohana] So, the description is tied to CN's LMA notifying MN's MAG to
CN's MAG. Ok, understand.  But some description on MN's LMA notifying
CN's MAG to MN's MAG will be also useful in the inter-LMA scenario.
What I am not clear is why is MN's MAG connected to CN's LMA?  Probably
this is another scenario addressed in scetion 7(inter LMA case).  Anyway
I will leave it for now.  If MN's MAG is connected to CN's LMA, then
such passing (CN's LMA passing CN MAG address to MN's MAG)is propoer.
Otherwise Cn's LMA will need to pass CN's MAG address to MN's LMA.

> [Qin]: Okay, actually PBU/PBA will be used between MAGs to create
binding
> when it is the first time for MAGs to setup localized routing path.
> The reason to create and refresh bindings between MAGs attached by
mobile
> node and correspondent node is quite similar to correspondent
registration
> in the Mobile IPv6 Routing optimization between mobile node and
> correspondent node described in the section 11.7.2 of RFC3775.
> i.e., allowing correspondent node to cache mobile node's proxy care-of
> address or allowing mobile node to cache correspondent node' proxy
care-of
> address,
[Mohana]I agree with your approach of using PBU/PBA for routing state
setup and tunnel setup between MAGs and think that is a good approach
and tied to RFC 5213 way.  From further reading of your draft I
understand this.  All I wanted to say is that in abstract, a mentioning
of PBU/PBA from MAG to MAG introduces more clarity.  That is all.
> [Qin]: Right, thank for your good catching and correction.  The reason
to
> say at least one CN is
> in some cases, maybe MN will communicate with more than one CN, in
this
> sense, LROREQ
> message may be sent from MN's LMA to each MAGs attached by serveral
CNs
> which is communicating with MN.
> or sent from MN's MAG to each LMA which is registered by more than one
CNs
> which is communicating with MN during inter-LMA handover case.
> 
[Mohana]Ok, sure I understand your intention proabably a minor
re-wording would do.

> [Qin]: Agree there is room for improvement here, this paragraph will
be
> reworded in accordance with the
[Mohana] Ok, thanks.

> [Qin]: Yes, inter LMA scenario will be handled in one separate section
of
> our Solution I-D. Our solution I-D mainly focuses on specifying the
> localize drouting protocol based on the first two scenarios described
in
> the section 3. the common aspect of the first two scenarios is it does
not
> require PMIP6 mobility entities discovery described in the PS draft.
As
> regarding to the inter-LMA local routing scenario, it depends on PMIP6
> mobility entities discovery, extra extended PMIP6 signaling is
required
> between MN's MAG and CN's LMA. Therefore inter-LMA local routing case
is
> separated from section 4 which is concentrating on the first two
scenarios
> and addressed in the independent section, i.e., section 7.

[Mohana]  Ok, understand. Do not know why I got confused.  Probably a
section outline may be helpful and I leave it to you to handle.
> MAG1 to which the MN is connected may send PBU message to the MAG2 to
[Mohana] probably somewords along the above lines may be useful.
> check whether prefix is ownd by MN and used to create a valid routing
> before it send the prefix to the CN's MAG. That is to say we can
assume
> there is a trust relationship between MN's MAG and CN's MAG. In oder
for
> this, two possible ways in my mind are,
> 2) the second way is we use IPSEC to setup Security association
between
> MN's MAG and CN's MAG.
> By these two ways mentioned above, we can have trust relationship
between
> MAGs, But what if MN's MAG establish trust relationship with CN's MAG
and
> send the forged MN's prefix to CN's MAG, I think the prefix ownership
> validation may be useful in this scenario to help create valid routing
> state at CN's MAGs
> Therefore I would like to address this security threat in our solution
I-
> D.Thanks for your good points.

[Mohana] Thanks Qin.  Although I liked the Pbu way of establishing
tunnel between MAGs, this prefix validation seemed important to address
the security part. In RFC 5213, LMA is the prefix delegator so such
issue is not needed.  But here, the CN's MAG need such validation.
Thanks for addressing this part.
> [Qin]: Good question, when MN hands over from pMAG1 to nMAG1 and keeps
on
> communication with CN, there is no trust relationship beforehand
between
> nMAG1 and MAG2 to which CN is connected.  That is true. But I think
MN's
> prefix will keep unchanged during handover. The only change to MN is
MN's
> Proxy CoA will . Is it necessary/mandatory to ask CN's MAG to validate
> MN's prefix ownership each time MN hands over? In my understanding,
prefix
> ownership validation can be understood as routing reachability
test(RRT)
> procedure defined in the RFC3775. But I am not sure RRT procedure will
be
> done each time MN hands over according to RFC3775.

[Mohana] For the handover case, just as in new establishment, the CN
needs to know that the nMAG is proxying the prefix.  So the prefix
validation method as for new connection can be used here. The RFC 3775
way of prefix validation is one way but there is more signaling.
Probably some assurance from LMA will be good regarding prefix validity.
I think this is critical bcos in handover case, LMA is not involved. So
to assure fast handoff one would not want the LMA to be involved.
Furthermore, using your method a distributed handoff management can be
done without the involvement of pMAG of MN notifying anything to CN'MAG.
What I am saying is nMAG of MN can handle the PBU with CN's MAG without
old MAG of MN being involved and this will expedite handover state
convergence.  The only thing that is needed in MN's nMAG to tell CN I
own/proxy this prefix and prefix is valid.

> [Qin]: How MAG know the CN address actually is beyond scope of this
> solution I-D. The possible way is MAG may look at data packet'
destination
> address to know CN address.For the case where one MN communicates with
one
> CN, MN-CN pair mobility option may include one MN's info and one CN's
info.
> MN's. For the case where one MN communciates with several CNs, MN-CN
pair
> mobility option may include one MN's info and several CNs' info.

[Mohana] Ok, thanks. I was just analyzing the benefits of MAG initiated
RO as opposed to LMA initiated RO and wanted to highlight some benefits
when MAG initiates RO.  I guess how MAG gets the information need not be
covered in the draft and it can be out of bound signaling.

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:25:34 +0800

Hi, Mohana:
Thank for your quick response, please see my feedback inline.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Qin Wu" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: Comments on :draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt

Hi Qin,

BR,
Mohana

CN's
to

[Qin]: Your understanding is correct. In the Inter-LMA local routing scenario, 
MN and CN attach to different MAGs and registers to different LMA respectively.
In this scenario, MN's LMA does not know CN's MAG address, what we can do here 
is to let MN's MAG talk with CN's LMA, then CN's LMA can tell MN's MAG about
CN's MAG address.
but if MN and CN share the same LMA, then it does not matter whether MN's LMA or 
CN's LMA notitfy CN's MAG to MN's MAG,
because MN's LMA is CN's LMA.

binding
mobile
registration
care-of

[Qin]: Okay, agree.

to
this
CNs
CNs

[Qin]: Right.

be
[Mohana] Ok, thanks.

of
in
not
As
required
is
scenarios

[Qin]: Okay.

assume
for
between
between
and
I-

[Qin]Agree.
on
between
MN's
MN's
prefix
test(RRT)
be

[Qin]: Okay, let me try to understand what you are explaining about prefix ownership validation.
It seems to me, there are three possible ways to do this task:
1) pMAG of MN notify CN's MAG that MN's prefix is valid.
2) LMA of CN notify CN's MAG that MN's prefix is valid.
3) nMAG of MN itself notify CN's MAG that MN's prefix is valid
In these three ways, the 3) seems more straightforward and efficient than 1) and 2) to  fulfill prefix owndership validation during handover.
But in some cases, e.g., MN and CN register to the same LMA, LMA may notify both MAGs associated with MN and CN that MN's prefix and CN's prefix are valid before PBU/PBA exchange between MN's MAG and CN's MAG happens. That is to say, prefix owndership validation also can be done during LROREQ/LRORSP exhange between MAG and LMA.
Anyway, I think prefix ownership validation is necessary and useful feature that can be used to create valid routing.

destination
one
info.
pair

[Qin]: Okay, understand. In my opinion, MAG initiated RO is more applicable to the local routing 
described in RFC 5213 than LMA initiated RO. But we can not exclude LMA to initiate RO as well.

---

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:44:22 +0800

Hi Qin,

Please see my short comments below.

BR,
Mohana

> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 4:26 PM
> To: Mohana Jeyatharan
> Cc: [email-masked]
> >     firstly so that it can notify its mobile access gateways
attached
> by
> In this scenario, MN's LMA does not know CN's MAG address, what we can
do
> here
> but if MN and CN share the same LMA, then it does not matter whether
MN's
> LMA or

[Mohana] Ok, do not want to dwell on this too much. So you are saying
that CN MAG address is passed to MN MAG by CN LMA.  A short question I
have is how does CN LMA address is known to MN MAG.  Anyway, I need to
read the inter-LMA part in more detail.
> > MAG1 to which the MN is connected may send PBU message to the MAG2
to
> > which the CN
> > option.  Then MN's MAG can start PBU with CN's MAG.  But the
question
> I
> > [Qin]: My understanding is if CN's MAG trusts MN's MAG, then CN's
MAG
> must
> > believe the prefix sent from MN's MAG is owned by MN. Because MN's
MAG
> can
> [Qin]: Okay, let me try to understand what you are explaining about
prefix
> ownership validation.
> In these three ways, the 3) seems more straightforward and efficient
than
> 1) and 2) to  fulfill prefix owndership validation during handover.
> But in some cases, e.g., MN and CN register to the same LMA, LMA may
> notify both MAGs associated with MN and CN that MN's prefix and CN's
> prefix are valid before PBU/PBA exchange between MN's MAG and CN's MAG
> happens. That is to say, prefix owndership validation also can be done
> during LROREQ/LRORSP exhange between MAG and LMA.
> Anyway, I think prefix ownership validation is necessary and useful
> feature that can be used to create valid routing.
> 
[Mohana] Thanks for the good break down and analysis. As you have
identified
3) seems more straightforward and efficient. When you are refering to
LMA involved in prefix validation, I think you are refering to LMA
initaited RO case.  I need to further look at your ID for LMA initiated
RO scenario and how LMA is involved during handoff procedures.  I will
get back to you soon on this with a little more comments on this
procedure. Thanks.

> described in RFC 5213 than LMA initiated RO. But we can not exclude
LMA to
> initiate RO as well.

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:13:42 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Qin Wu" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 5:44 PM
Subject: RE: Comments on :draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt

Hi Qin,

BR,
Mohana

attached
do
MN's

[Qin]: PMIP6 mobility entities discovery( i.e., LMA) described in PS draft will be used to 
obtain CN LMA address. In our solution I-D, one AAA mechanism can be adopted to perform
PMIP6 mobility entities discovery. The details can be read in another I-D,i.e., draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr-01.

to
question
MAG
MAG
prefix
than

[Qin]: As regarding to LMA involved prefix validation, I think it also can be applicable to MAG Initiated RO case. But one more message from LMA is required to notify the CN's MAG MN's prefix is valid upon LMA receiving LROREQ message from MAG. In other words,  e.g., MN's MAG requests CN's LMA to validate CN's prefix ownership by sending LROREQ message including MN-CN pair mobility option, LMA respond to MN's MAG with LRORSP, at the same time, LMA notify CN's MAG that MN's prefix is valid by sending LROREQ to CN's MAG.

LMA to

---

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:55:25 +0800

Hi Qin,

Please see some replies below.

BR,
Mohana

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Qin Wu
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:14 AM
> To: Mohana Jeyatharan
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netext] Comments on :draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt
> 
> 
> > >     the correspondent node to the mobile access gateway attached
by
> > the
> > >     mobile node afterwards."
> > >
> > > <<<[Mohana] In abstract it is not very clear which entitiy
notifies
> > is to let MN's MAG talk with CN's LMA, then CN's LMA can tell MN's
MAG
> > about
> [Qin]: PMIP6 mobility entities discovery( i.e., LMA) described in PS
draft
> will be used to
> PMIP6 mobility entities discovery. The details can be read in another
I-
> D,i.e., draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr-01.
> 
> >

[Mohana] Ok, so when LMA1(MAG1(Mn)) and LMA2(MAG2(CN)) are in the same
domain, I guess this mechanism AAA based can be used to find CN LMA
address.  But when LMA of Mn and LMA of CN are in different domains, and
MN and CN placed in another visited domain, then discovery of CN LMA
address may be more difficult using the AAA.  Am I right to say that?
Also it depends whether the solution space is looking at LMAs placed in
different provider domains and MN and CN placed in another visited
domain.

> > > <<<[Mohana] What is the reason for this.  Is this refering to PBU
to
> > LMA
> > > PMIPv6 domain. This should be aligned with the PS draft
terminology.
> > It
> > > <<<[Mohana] why is there reference to at least one pair of CN.
Are
> u
> > > <<<[Mohana]the MAG1 is connectedto IPv4 only or IPv4/IPv6
transport
> > >    should stay with MN within the same PMIPv6 domain, e.g., MN
moves
> > to
> > >    the visited domain to which CN belongs. Another example is MN
and
> > CN
> > > instaed of PMIPv6 domain.  The second bullet says MN and CN
attached
> > > <<<[Mohana]Here I think there needs to be a rephrasing of
sentence.
> > > In section 4.1, in para 3 it is mentioned that MN's MAG is
informed
> of
> > > CN MAG via LROResponse from LMA (assuming MAG initiated RO) and
CN's
> > > does the CN's MAG know that this prefix is owned by MN and MN's
MAG
> > > to create the the routing state for CN's prefix at MN's MAG the
MN's
> [Qin]: As regarding to LMA involved prefix validation, I think it also
can
> be applicable to MAG Initiated RO case. But one more message from LMA
is
> required to notify the CN's MAG MN's prefix is valid upon LMA
receiving
> LROREQ message from MAG. In other words,  e.g., MN's MAG requests CN's
LMA
> to validate CN's prefix ownership by sending LROREQ message including
MN-
> CN pair mobility option, LMA respond to MN's MAG with LRORSP, at the
same
> time, LMA notify CN's MAG that MN's prefix is valid by sending LROREQ
to
> CN's MAG.

[Mohana] Ok, agree that even in MAG initiated RO case, LMA can be
involved in giving prefix validation.  But then again as you have said
there is additional signaling from LMA to CN.MAG which can be avoided
using method [3].
> > when MAG initiates RO.  I guess how MAG gets the information need
not
> > > I have more comments.  But rather than sending all at once I
thought
attached
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:42:51 +0800

Hi, Mohana:
Please see my comments inline.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Qin Wu" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: [netext] Comments on :draft-wu-netext-local-ro-04.txt

Hi Qin,

BR,
Mohana

Behalf
by
notifies
MAG
draft
I-

[Qin]: Even LMA1 and LMA2 are located in the different domains, AAA mechanism also can be used
to find CN's LMA address. Because AAA mechanism has its scalability and flexibility. AAA server can
be depolyed in the home and visited domain. Also the AAA server in one domain can communicate with
the AAA server in another domain. Therefore it is not difficult to use AAA mechanism to discover CN's 
LMA in one domain different from MN's LMA. Because the AAA message can be routed or redirected to the right
domain in which CN's home AAA server is located.

to
terminology.
Are
transport
moves
and
attached
sentence.
informed
CN's
MAG
MN's
can
is
receiving
LMA
MN-
same
to

[Qin]: Agree.

not
thought
attached