IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] FW: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 23 February 2009 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DD53A6874 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:50:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, 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 O-YlXj-6+U9n for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407E23A6A31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nephilia.intra.cea.fr (nephilia.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.33]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id n1NAoEFl022882; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:50:14 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by nephilia.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1NAoDeX003427; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:50:13 +0100 (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 n1NAoCdq026291; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:50:13 +0100
Message-ID: <49A27F64.7010808@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:50:12 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
References: <C5C47C6D.23064%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5C47C6D.23064%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:50:01 -0000

Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
> Hi Hesham,
> 
> After looking at your proposed text, I must say that I am not totally
> convinced.
> 
> Stepping back from the specific issue raised by Pasi for a moment,
> - Do we really need to have the capability to obtain the prefix from the HA
> when the MN does not have IPv6 connectivity to the HA? While I recognize the
> fact that this mechanism is specified in RFC3775 as a means by which the MN
> can obtain the prefix from the HA to bootstrap, I don't believe it has much
> value.
> Since other bootstrapping mechanisms have been developed, I do not see the
> need for obtaining the prefix from the HA by an MN using the prefix
> solicitation mechanism, especially in the case where the MN is attached via
> IPv4 only. Hence I would suggest removing this feature entirely from the
> DSMIP6 I-D. I do not see any harm in not having the capability to do prefix
> solicitation when attached via an IPv4 only network.

Inconvenient: losing the ability to deal with renumbering of the home 
network.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email