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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 09 September 2010 06:33 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 783563A659C; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 23:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.775
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6]
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 EdSd1W4GmmML; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 23:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8AB3A6403; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 23:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o896YL7h002331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:34:21 +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 o896YKEf009426; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:34:20 +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 o896YKql020656; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:34:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4C887FEC.40905@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:34:20 +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: Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard
References: <20100907153620.7037.57685.idtracker@localhost> <4C87A4A8.6060909@gmail.com> <B1762FEA-D894-4D15-82B1-2D6A3AFFF481@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <B1762FEA-D894-4D15-82B1-2D6A3AFFF481@ericsson.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: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 06:33:56 -0000

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.
>
>
>
>
>