IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Mon, 23 February 2009 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.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 63AF83A6934 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:47:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.082
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.517, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 nfaJmzNT70cm for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504323A68C4 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n1NEjZFB021293; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:47:20 -0600
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:46:20 +0200
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:46:20 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:46:15 +0200
Received: from nok-am1mhub-08.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.15) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:46:14 +0100
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.108]) by nok-am1mhub-08.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.15]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:46:14 +0100
From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:46:20 +0100
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal
Thread-Index: AcmVpI+DSBRIM/GJQ1qeNrtJ34OfZwAIO3K3
Message-ID: <C5C812DC.23157%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A27F64.7010808@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2009 14:46:15.0398 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A8DD060:01C995C5]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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 14:47:15 -0000

On 2/23/09 4:50 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.

This is based on the assumption that an HoA that is assigned to an MN will
essentially be static. I don't see this as being practical since MNs will
tend to obtain an HoA dynamically every time they boot or other intervals.
So renumbering of the home network is a non-issue.

-Raj

>
> Alex
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email