Concerns about designating the MAG as a Default Router James Kempf NETLMM Interim Sept. 27, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 Mangesh Kaushikkar. Overview Introduction Terminology Protocol Overview Message Formats Conceptual Model of a Host.
Advertisements

Transitioning to IPv6 April 15,2005 Presented By: Richard Moore PBS Enterprise Technology.
IPv4 to IPv6 Migration strategies. What is IPv4  Second revision in development of internet protocol  First version to be widely implied.  Connection.
1 IPv6. 2 Problem: 32-bit address space will be completely allocated by Solution: Design a new IP with a larger address space, called the IP version.
1 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, nature calls a butterfly. - Anonymous.
IP Version 6 Next generation IP Prof. P Venkataram ECE Dept. IISc.
Network Localized Mobility Management using DHCP
Page 1 / 14 The Mesh Comparison PLANET’s Layer 3 MAP products v.s. 3 rd ’s Layer 2 Mesh.
IETF 651 Issues With Protocols Proposing Multilink Subnets draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues-00.txt Dave Thaler
 As defined in RFC 826 ARP consists of the following messages ■ ARP Request ■ ARP Reply.
SAVI IP Source Guard draft-baker-sava- implementation Fred Baker.
Doc.: IEEE /1183r0 Submission September 2011 Masataka Ohta, Tokyo Institute of TechnologySlide 1 IP over Congested WLAN Date: Authors:
DAD Optimization Youn-Hee Han Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology 57 th IETF, Vienna, Austria July 13-18, 2003.
1 Route Optimization based on ND-Proxy for Mobile Nodes in IPv6 Mobile Networks Jaehoon Jeong, Kyeongjin Lee, Jungsoo Park, Hyoungjun Kim ETRI
1 Internet Networking Spring 2004 Tutorial 7 Multicast Routing Protocols.
MOBILITY SUPPORT IN IPv6
Oct 21, 2004CS573: Network Protocols and Standards1 IP: Addressing, ARP, Routing Network Protocols and Standards Autumn
Transition Mechanisms for Ipv6 Hosts and Routers RFC2893 By Michael Pfeiffer.
Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Problem Statement JinHyeock Choi, Samsung AIT
Chapter 23: ARP, ICMP, DHCP IS333 Spring 2015.
1 LAN switching and Bridges Relates to Lab 6. Covers interconnection devices (at different layers) and the difference between LAN switching (bridging)
Introduction to IT and Communications Technology Justin Champion C208 – 3292 Ethernet Switching CE
CCNA Introduction to Networking 5.0 Rick Graziani Cabrillo College
Network Redundancy Multiple paths may exist between systems. Redundancy is not a requirement of a packet switching network. Redundancy was part of the.
2002 년 2 학기이동인터넷프로토콜 1 Mobile IP:Overview 년 2 학기이동인터넷프로토콜 2 Mobile IP overview Is Mobile IP an official standard? What problems does Mobile IP solve?
Chapter 4: Managing LAN Traffic
Summary of Certification Process (part 1). IPv6 Client IPv6 packets inside IPv4 packets.
IPv6 Home Networking Architecture - update IETF homenet WG Interim meeting Philadelphia, 6 th Oct 2011 draft-chown-homenet-arch-00.
Common Devices Used In Computer Networks
VLAN V irtual L ocal A rea N etwork VLAN Network performance is a key factor in the productivity of an organization. One of the technologies used to.
1 Multilink Subnets draft-thaler-ipngwg-multilink-subnets-00.txt Dave Thaler Christian Huitema Microsoft.
10/8/2015CST Computer Networks1 IP Routing CST 415.
1 AutoconfBOF2.PPT / Aug / Singh,Perkins,Clausen IETF Not Confidential Ad hoc network autoconfiguration: definition and problem statement (draft-singh-autoconf-adp-00.txt)
ECE 526 – Network Processing Systems Design Networking: protocols and packet format Chapter 3: D. E. Comer Fall 2008.
49th IETF - San Diego - 1 Mobile Networks Support in IPv6 - Draft Update draft-ernst-mobileip-v6-01.txt - Thierry Ernst - MOTOROLA Labs Ludovic Bellier.
IETF 51, IPv6 WG1 Multilink Subnets draft-thaler-ipngwg-multilink-subnets-01.txt Dave Thaler
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt Simple DNA draft-krishnan-dna-simple-03 Suresh Krishnan Greg Daley.
CCNP Network Route IPV-6 Part-I IPV6 Addressing: IPV-4 is 32-BIT, IPV-6 is 128-BIT IPV-6 are divided into 8 groups. Each is 4 Hex characters. Each group.
Mobile IP Outline Intro to mobile IP Operation Problems with mobility.
IETF 81: V6OPS Working Group – Proxy Mobile IPv6 – Address Reservations 1 Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Sri Gundavelli (Cisco)
1 Evaluation of PMIPv6 Base Multicast Support Drafts Stig Venaas Behcet Sarikaya November 2009 Multimob WG IETF 76.
Introduction to Mobile IPv6
IPv6 Subnet Model Analysis Syam Madanapalli LogicaCMG On-behalf of v6subnet Design Team Presented by Soohong Daniel Park.
ICMPv6 Error Message Types Informational Message Types.
Neighbor Discovery. IPv6 Terminology Additional subnets Router Host Neighbors Host Intra-subnet router Switch LAN segment Link Subnet Network.
Cooperation between stations in wireless networks Andrea G. Forte, Henning Schulzrinne Department of Computer Science, Columbia University Presented by:
CS470 Computer Networking Protocols
OSPFv3 Auto-Config IETF 83, Paris Jari Arkko, Ericsson Acee Lindem, Ericsson.
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery over Syam Madanapalli Samsung ISO IETF 64 – Vancouver, Canada November 8 th 2005.
Per-MS Prefix Model for IPv6 in WiMAX by Frank Xia Behcet Sarikaya Raj Patil Presented by Jonne Soininen.
Doc.: IEEE /1183r1 Submission September 2011 Masataka Ohta, Tokyo Institute of TechnologySlide 1 IP over Congested WLAN Date: Authors:
ROUTING.
IP: Addressing, ARP, Routing
Booting up on the Home Link
Mobile Networking (I) CS 395T - Mobile Computing and Wireless Networks
Encryption and Network Security
CIS 116 IPv6 Fundamentals 2 – Primer Rick Graziani Cabrillo College
Chapter 4 Introduction to Network Layer
Support for Flow bindings in MIPv6 and NEMO
Link Model Analysis for based Networks
Month 2002 doc.: IEEE /xxxr0 November 2004 Routing and Rbridges
Introducing To Networking
Chapter 4 Introduction to Network Layer
Networking Essentials
Mobile IP Outline Homework #4 Solutions Intro to mobile IP Operation
Mobile IP Outline Intro to mobile IP Operation Problems with mobility.
Review of Internet Protocols Network Layer
Introduction to Network
Mobile IP Outline Intro to mobile IP Operation Problems with mobility.
Presentation transcript:

Concerns about designating the MAG as a Default Router James Kempf NETLMM Interim Sept. 27, 2006

Concerns In practice, “link local” means “subnet local” In general, link local addresses cannot be assumed unique across the NETLMM domain

Shared Links Only Unique global prefix per mobile node means global address are unique on the link Concern confined to links in which the last hop is a shared link (i.e. Ethernet like) Pt. to Pt. links will have only two nodes, MN and last hop router, so no problem NBMA links will route through default router so default router can control link local routing, so no problem here either –Am I missing anything here?

“Link local” means “subnet local” Global address uniqueness is confirmed through link local multicast reachability (RFC 2461) For DAD, a node multicasts NS to confirm global address uniqueness to a link local Solicited_Node_Multicast address Establishes a correspondence between link local multicast reachability and global address uniqueness (and therefore reachability)

Application Assumptions Applications may assume global reachability implies link local reachability Example: –Application uses NS for address resolution to establish link local address reachability of a corresponding global address on a single NETLMM link Even though prefixes are different for each mobile node, applications may exchange information that allows this kind of deduction –Mobile node moves to a new NETLMM link –Global address is still reachable and hasn’t changed but link local address is no longer reachable Normal Ethernet links are kind of the opposite –Most nodes won’t change their link local address –They may change their global address (e.g. RFC 3041 address privacy)

Nonuniqueness of Link Local Addresses Link local addresses must be confirmed for uniqueness using DAD too. A node in a NETLMM network will DAD a link local address on its initial link –Change in default router (i.e. MAG) by moving to a new link means node must redo DAD to ensure link local address uniqueness –But nodes will redo DAD only if a change in subnet occurs (e.g. “link local” means “subnet local”) –Redoing DAD if subnet doesn’t change is not default node behavior even under DNA

Solution 1 Forward link local multicast NS for DAD to all MAGs in NETLMM domain –If conflict, MAG encapsulates SEND secured NA response to sending router Multilink subnet danger Let’s not go there

Solution 2 Require (i.e. “MUST” implement and “MUST” deploy) SEND for link local addresses SEND addresses are statistically unique cryptographiclly verifable (SUCV) identifiers Extremely low probability of collision if nodes’ random number generator is good How to eliminate residual probability of collision? Is it even necessary?

Alternative The MAG is an IP level (*not* link level) bridge –MAG routes same IP prefix between its tunnel interface to LMA and its wireless interface to the mobile node –MAG may have a nontunnel interface towards the Internet on which it behaves like a standard IP router –IP bridge allows bridging between two different link types No loops possible since MAG is by definition a last hop device The link between the MAG and the mobile node is point to point Last hop router is the LMA Existence proof: GPRS –SGSN is a bridge as far as GPRS traffic to/from mobile node is concerned

Simplified Multicast Handling MLD REPORT sent to LMA No need for any additional processing by the network or mobile node when the mobile node moves to a new MAG –LMA is last hop router and doesn’t change Multicast traffic is routed through the tunnel overlay from the LMA to MAG

Implementation Possibilities Using a Layer 2 tunnel between the mobile node and MAG confines any link local multicast to the MAG and mobile node –Virtual point to point link –Only two nodes on the link (mobile node and LMA) –No possibility of link local address collision except with LMA Mobile node is on a point to point link with the LMA –Layer 2 tunnel to MAG –IP tunnel from MAG to LMA

Conclusion Are there any specific use cases why the MAG must have routing functionality? Are there any problems with the MAG being a bridge?

Summary of Conclusions from Discussion There are really two separable issues –Whether the last hop between the MAG and the mobile node is a point to point link or not –Whether the MAG is a router, bridge, or could be either Last hop must be a point to point link because otherwise ND provides no protection against duplicates for link local addresses across the NETLMM domain –IPv6 nodes that move to a new router don’t by default run ND for link locals unless their subnet changes Whether or not the MAG is a router is unclear, arguments for either or both need to be clarified –Phil takes an action item to investigate –Jari wants to see this discussed in the protocol spec before we send it to IESG