Telechat Review of draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-12
review-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-12-opsdir-telechat-chittimaneni-2013-11-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2013-11-19
Requested 2013-11-11
Authors Xingyue Zhou, Jouni Korhonen, Carl Williams, Sri Gundavelli, Carlos Bernardos
Draft last updated 2013-11-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -12 by Kiran Chittimaneni (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Kiran Chittimaneni
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-12-opsdir-telechat-chittimaneni-2013-11-20
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 14)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2013-11-20

Review
review-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-12-opsdir-telechat-chittimaneni-2013-11-20

Hello!

As a member of the Operations Directorate, I have reviewed the following draft  for it's operational impact. I hope these comments are clear and useful.




Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (Intended Status: Standards Track)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-12




This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for allowing a mobile router in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to obtain IP prefixes for its attached mobile networks using DHCPv6 prefix delegation.




From an operational perspective, the document discusses various deployment scenarios/models and explains, in detail, the operation of each which is very useful. 

However, the document doesn't provide much guidance in general in terms of logging/reporting. For e.g., in Section 5.1.2 Signaling Considerations - Is there a mechanism to inform the mobile router with some status in the event that the MAG receives a REQUESTED_DMNP_IN_USE or NOT_AUTHORIZED_FOR_DELEGATED_MNP message?




Also, in some cases  it is not clear if packets should be silently discarded (e.g. section 5.1.4 Packet Forwarding) or logged and discarded. I'd imagine that the latter might be beneficial from an operational point of view. Not sure if there was any discussion regarding this.




Here are some minor nits:

In Section 1.

"In this context, the mobility management support that is enabled for an individual IP host, which is the mobile node."




The sentence doesn't read well. Guessing that the word 'that' doesn't belong in this sentence.

"The mobility entities in the PMIPv6 network provide network-based mobility management support for those delegated prefixes just as it is supported for an home address."




s/an/a

Figure 3.

Message 10 - s/DNMP/DMNP

Section 5.2.2

"If the Proxy Binding Update message includes one or more Delegated Mobile Network Prefix options, but either the local mobility anchor is not configured to support Delegated Prefix support, then the local mobility anchor will ignore the option(s) and process the rest of the option as specified in [RFC5213]."




Not sure if there was an 'or' statement to follow the 'either'. It seems to me that there is just one condition - the LMA is not configured to support Delegated Prefix. 







Regards,

KK