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

[Wassim Haddad <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hesham,

Since DHC WG explicitly recommended sending such request to MIF, IMHO trying to do it in 
MEXT will only cause delay in doing it in MIF.

IMHO, the best way forward is not to extend DHCP but to revise and make the change in the 
RFC. But I guess this is another discussion!


Wassim H.

________________________________________
From: Hesham Soliman [[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 16:03
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Wassim Haddad; IETF Discussion; mext
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard

>> =>  I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to solve this
>> problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email. I know what the RFC
>> says and I wouldn't have done it this way but given this, I don't know how
>> else you can solve it _here_.
>
> I am open to solve it here and I have suggestion :
>
> - make DHCPv6-PD-NEMO assign a default route to the Mobile Router at
>    home.
>
> What do you think?

=> That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the host on
egress interface behaviour. The RFC seems inconsistent on its requirements
for the egress interface at home, but it's been a long time since I read it
so I may have forgotten some of the reasons. I think it can work and at
least it will lead to a consistent implementation.
Extending DHCP can work but whether it's done here or in dhc or mif is not
really important to me.

Hesham

>
> I also followed advice and went asking to DHC WG.  I got redirected to
> MIF soon-Charter DHCP options route table, and got mentioned
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router req W-3 talking DHCPv6-PD and default
> route.
>
> Alex
>
>
>>
>> Hesham
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>