Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 16 September 2010 15:52 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 2A3AD3A6998; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, 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 sj7KzTq3BZKX; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:51:57 -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 064423A6904; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:51:56 -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 o8GFqDUR018391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:52:13 +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 o8GFqCuu021576; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:52:13 +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 o8GFqCkU017131; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:52:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4C923D2C.6070304@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:52:12 +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: <C8B722EE.1523A%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8B722EE.1523A%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: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:52:01 -0000
Le 15/09/2010 17:27, Hesham Soliman a écrit : > > >>> => 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. >> >> I am not sure which RFC you mean seem inconsistent? If rfc3963 - >> yes, it says MR MAY use the received RAs on the egress interface to >> autoconfigure an address and form a default route. However, I >> think in practice pure linux does not do it (or am I missing radvd >> procsys options?). One would have to check the public NEMOv6 >> implementations too. Without NEMOv6 implementation this does not >> work (i.e. that MAY is interpreted as a no on pure linux). With >> it I don't know. > > => Ok but now you're talking about an implementation issue. 3963 > allows the router to act as a host on its egress at home. Either we > change implementations or the RFC needs to be changed. Kernel > implementations need ro change anyway to support nemov6. > >> >> I myself have forgotten many of the reasons. I think I vaguely >> remember Pascal insisting of that being MR-autoconfigure an >> address as a MAY because IIRC a Cisco router would autoconfigure an >> address and a default route. I am not very precise on this >> remembering. > > => I also think what he suggested makes sense. Which means the MR > would act the same way at home or on a visited link when it comes to > listening to RAs. I think MR is good to act as a router on the home link and even some times offer a default route to someone in the home link needing one. And that makes it MUST send RAs sometimes. > So it adds little argument to the need for dhc extensions. In a sense, yes, right, little from NEMOv6 spec requires dhc extensions. It is more of my current stubordness requiring dhc extensions to deliver a default route to a Mobile Router at home. Alex >> If you mean RFC4861 then I think it is consistent andgood it has >> this distinction between Host and Router (Router doesn't >> autoconfigure a default route, etc.). > > => I was talking about 3963. 4861 is fine in this respect. > > Hesham > > >
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Pr… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Pr… Wassim Haddad
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Pr… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- RE: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- RE: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Wassim Haddad
- RE: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Wassim Haddad
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- RE: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Behcet Sarikaya
- RE: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DH… Alexandru Petrescu