Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 10 September 2010 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB48D3A6359; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4EfmdpDrMMej; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01253A6A3C; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o8A9tWbv002102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:55:32 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o8A9tWRS017890; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:55:32 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o8A9tVPa024716; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:55:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4C8A0093.9090906@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:55:31 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard
References: <C8B03C1B.14FA0%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8B03C1B.14FA0%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, mext <mext@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:55:23 -0000

Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
>
>
>>>
>>> =>   Who cares, specify it in your product description. The IETF
>>>  doesn't specify how to build products.
>>
>> Hmm... to me it is a very IETF sensitive issue the Router vs Host.
>> For example, an ND spec says distinctively what a Host and what a
>> Router does, e.g. a Host does not respond to Router Solicitation.
>
> =>  Yes and it does so on a per-interface basis, not on a
> per-machine basis.

Yes, and the Mobile Router is a Router on its egress interface when
connected at home, as per spec.  It is that interface that needs a
default route automatically configured.

Alex

>
> Hesham
>
>>
>> In this same way a Router should dynamically be able to obtain a
>> default route, in addition to a Host doing so.
>>
>> The products sold are neither Hosts nor Routers - they're BFRs,
>> servers, desktops, tablets, laptops.
>>
>>> If you want to solve this with protocols then use routing
>>> protocols. Of course you need to solve the security issues when
>>> the MR moves.
>>
>> But SLAAC (what you call ND) is not a routing protocol yet does
>> deliver a default route, only to Hosts.  DHCPv6 is not a routing
>> protocol either but does not deliver a default route neither to
>> Hosts nor to Routers.
>>
>> (I am not clear whether the DHCPv6 spec forbids delivery of a
>> default route; or allows; I have to check; the implementation does
>> not.)
>>
>>> I am not
>>>> sure how clean is it anyways to disregard that 'M' bit of RA
>>>> anyways.
>>>>
>>>> The alternative to using routing protocols (OSPF?) to
>>>> communicate a default route to the MR - I am not sure how this
>>>> could work, never seen it in practice.
>>>
>>> =>   For  a good reason! You need to work out trust across
>>> domains.
>>
>> Probably...
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hesham
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>