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

Le 09/09/2010 07:54, Wassim Haddad a écrit :
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
>> I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
>>
>> It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network
>> Prefix to the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
>>
>> However, here are a couple of missing points.
>>
>> One missing point is about how will the Mobile Router configure its
>> default route on the home link?  I thought Prefix Delegation would
>> bring DHCP in the picture and would allow MR to synthesize a
>> default route even though RAs are absent.  But I now realize that
>> a DHCPv6-PD implementation (and std?) does not allow a router (MR)
>> to synthesize its default route (neither RA does, nor DHCPv6-nonPD
>> does).
>
> =>  Am not sure I understand from your comment where the problem
> really lies. If neither RA does the job nor DHCPv6 then why do you
> think this problem (if it is really a problem) should be adressed in
> this particular draft and not in a more general way?

Right.  I am not sure how could that more general way be.  What do you
mean by a more general way?

Why this particular draft?  Prior to DHCPv6-PD came into picture there
was only one way to configure the MNP in the moving network: manual
config.  If we say manual config then we can also add the default route
manually.  Now we are ready to have SLAAC+DHCP, and as such manual
config seems to be quitting the picture.  YEt there's no means to
configure automatically the default route at home (it's a Router!).

NEMO-DHCPv6-PD could have been a good place where to say how the default
route is configured on the MR at home, since it is _almost_ entirely
automatic.  That's why I call it a missing point.

Alex

>
>
> Wassim H.
>
>
>> Another missing point is that this spec talks _only_ one specific
>> case where DHCPv6-PD is used _without_ a real Relay: the MR is
>> Client and Relay and the HA is the Server DR.  My deployment is
>> different: the MR is not the Relay, just Client; and the Server DR
>> is not HA.  For this to work there are some modifications needed
>> on the DHCPv6 Relay implementation and std (manage the the
>> allocated prefix in the Relay's routing table).
>>
>> I believe this model of deploying DHCPv6-PD (HA is not Server,
>> Client is not Relay) is inline with existing DHCPv4 deployments
>> and that gives an easy v6 migration path.
>>
>> There are several ways of addressing these two missing points.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> Le 07/09/2010 17:36, The IESG a écrit :
>>> The IESG has received a request from the Mobility EXTensions for
>>>  IPv6 WG (mext) to consider the following document:
>>>
>>> - 'DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO '
>>> <draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt>   as a Proposed Standard
>>>
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>>> solicits final comments on this action.  Please send substantive
>>> comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-09-21.
>>> Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In
>>> either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to
>>> allow automated sorting.
>>>
>>> The file can be obtained via
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17328&rfc_flag=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
No IPR declarations were found that appear related to this I-D.
>>> _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce
>>> mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> Regards,
>
> Wassim H.
>
>
>
>
>