From: Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>,
 Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 19:39:23 -0400
Subject: RE: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix
 Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix
 Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: ActSBYiVXnNWoVO6mUaJsnhbRS1zAwABFISA
Message-ID: <2991246A29623A4082EB2B06A2B891A42BC354A300@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <4C8B7486.9050405@gmail.com>,
 <C8B247DB.150B3%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8B247DB.150B3%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, mext <mext@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

Hi Hesham,

Since DHC WG explicitly recommended sending such request to MIF, IMHO tryin=
g to do it in=20
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=20
RFC. But I guess this is another discussion!


Wassim H.

________________________________________
From: Hesham Soliman [hesham@elevatemobile.com]
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 Deleg=
ation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard

>> =3D>  I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to solve th=
is
>> problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email. I know what the R=
FC
>> says and I wouldn't have done it this way but given this, I don't know h=
ow
>> 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?

=3D> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>