NetLMM WG session, Mon, 9:00am - 11:30am Agenda: agenda bashing draft status SDO outreach Continued DT work and interim meeting DT protocol presentation MN-AR interface draft Security threats draft --- draft status : MN-AR draft: new author and added DHCP work Clarification: DT drafts are starting point for WG draft. --- SDO outreach : 3GPP - NetLMM presented at joint 3GPP SA1/SA2 meeting in Lisbon (June 2006) --- Continued DT work : DT will issue stable draft middle of Sept 2006. Plan: 2 days interim meeting e.o. Sept. : Chicage has been proposed. : raise hands -> 16 want to come --- DT draft presentation and discussion : netLMM protocol overview (slides) *Netlmm terms *NetLMM domain overview *NetLMM messages *Message transport Lot of discussion in the DT. Input welcome. Result of debate was to use UDP. *Message use at functional elements *Detailed message types LMA allocation request/reply Associate request/reply Disassociate request/reply Location Registration/Ack Location Deregistration/Ack Routing Setup/Ack Prefix at MN or whole address at MN? Please ask question later MN address setup/Ack MN Address Remove/Ack Heartbeat/Ack *Error COdes *Call Flow SCenarios Initial network access Stateful address assignment via DHCP SLAAC Multiple IP addresses via SLAAC IP address release notification inter-MAG handover (no CT) Resource Revocation DHCP renewal on new MAG associated packet en-/decapsulated between MAG and LMA IP Address no longer in use (only when known for sure) Maybe WG can help to define details Network detachment IP Multicast join groups *Data flows Link-local multicast traffic Unicast traffic MN sourcing IP multicast traffic MN receiving IP multicast traffic *Upcoming work items *Summary Input welcome/comments solicited Great work. Seems to be many messages (feedback already). Errors in the DHCP messages. Prefix distribution LMA-MAG Do you consider router re-numbering? So far not. Maybe TBD. Could be useful to implement. 'High level' is comment such as on DHCP, etc. Mobile network prefix distribution considered? Keep it flexible to support. Field allow prefixes Great overview. Question is whether each MN gets different prefix. Each MN could append different prefix. CAN or MUST different MNS receive different prefixes? Not MUST. Cleanest solution would be to keep it consistent to assign per MN prefixes (?). LMA does not care about individual addresses. Agree that DAD is unreliable. Not solve this problem. Focus on mobility management, not on how addresses are being done. Agree that cleanest solution is to assign one prefix per MN. Strong concerns with this? Stateless and stateful, only a MN issue. With DHCP, the MN can also request a particular address, not that the DHCP in any case assigns the address. DHCP server can be used to perform SLAAC. We'll look into this. Don't mandate a unique prefix per MN. Router Adverts are the same for all MNs. Too many message. Looks too complicated. Many things optional. I see that some functions are not required for mobility. Now I understant your comment that some messages are just not needed. Propose to put MSCs into the draft. None of DT members wants to keep complicated signaling. Mandating the MAG being default gateeway: I don't see a reason to mandate. Fine to recommmend, but do not disallow that the LMA is the default GW. Look at DNA. Bidirectional reachability to be confirmed. I don't think that in 802 networks it makes sense to mandate the MAG is the default gateway. SLAAC: MAG is user agent. Natural that MAG is DHCP relay. If there is more that one router, there is not only the MAG. Lots of discussion, MN can use any of these routers as default GW. Then it triggers the serving MAG. Routing Tags, not really required, since details are not really described. Is conceptual concept. We discussed to keep it out. Heartbeat: Not every protocol should use heartbeats. We use UDP, which is not reliable. Should be a soft-state protocol. Why not use Mobility Header? Do you need reliability? DT discussed this also. This time after a debate we decided to use UDP. WG comments solicited. Heartbeat is orthogonal to the reliabilty discussion. Get a sense if WG thinks that NetLMM needs reliable transport -> more want it reliable. Heartbeat. What for? Detect various failures. Node failure, Link failure. Reachability of a network is beyond NetLMM. Should not be in the protocol. What do others think? With SCTP, you don't need to care. We found it useful. Maybe Vidya can poste a list of issues to the list. Easier to comment and discuss Yes. SLAAC. DAD should be based on what? Where is the prefix? Prefix assigned in step#7. Comes from the LMA. MAG advertises. If this prefix comes from DHCP? Can multiple MAGs share this prefix? Two different things. LMA assigns the prefix for the MN. Assumption is multiple MNs on that prefix. Can other MAGs use this prefix? Yes, since prefix is assigned to MN, not to MAG. MAG just advertises. What about re-newing the prefix? Prefix travels around with the MN. Confusion: Prefix from DHCP is prefix delegation. This is different. Looks like this is about prefix delegation in stateless configuration. All it does is to assign the prefix through the MAG. LMA default router, as Vidya proposes: Colocated case? Two functions on the same box. In case multiple ARs on the link? MN decides which is default router (through NDP). Host side can have multiple default routers. There is an RFC on that (Host Route Sharing from IPv6 WG). Then we need to support this mode of operation. Why is tunnel bi-directional? Debate on unidirectional vs. bi-directional. You could do it with routing through dfferent LMAs. Depends on policy. Issue is uni- vs bi-directional. 8 mins left. Then move to the next items. # of messages: Example address expiration, draft describes to tear down the address. DHCP has no signaling on that. It just expires. Route comes down automatically. No timer in NetLMM for addresses. MAG and LMA share SA should be mandatoy. PS draft, comments from security AD. Requirement for NetLMM, routing security issues can be given to other WG. Initial Network Access: Individual prefixes for MNs. Use DHCP prefix delegation to ease protocol operation. NetLMM address: How long is the address valid? What if MN moves to different MAG? Once MN has IP address, it stays as long as the MN is in the NetLMM domain. --- MN-AR Interface MN-AR interface (slides) *New author works on DHCP. *Resolved issues. *Unresolved issues. *Biggest issue: Multiple ARs per link. Send DHCP messages to a specific L2 address. (?) The one that the MN selected takes care about the MN. You don't want MN to be involved in mobility. Why to decide default router? MN can talk to other MN on the same link? Talk indirectly. Everything is on-link? It's off-link, all packets sent by MN goes through the router. Two MNs on the same LMA (?) All ARs and LMA should decrement TTL. MN should select a router. Not that the MN can say I want router xyz. Disagree. MN can decide to use a particular AR. MN cannot choose the downlink. thought NeLMM is to completely hide everything. MN given an IP address, that's it. Right. --- Security threats Security threats (slides) Overview of changes. No solutions yet. Solutions should be in MN-AR draft. How to deal with impersonation attacks? So solutions here. Should be in MN-AR draft. Unauthorized AR, Unauthorized LMA (?) DHCP has some security. Can we use?