[mif] LTE lightweight Router use-case for default routes
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 12:08 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D211F21F853A for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V3sOEDIWTlTw for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD1B21F85CE for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:08:15 -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-2.3) with ESMTP id q2UC8FoT026945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:08:15 +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 q2UC8Emm023789 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:08:15 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id q2UC8Bcj002705 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:08:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4F75A22B.7080109@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:08:11 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [mif] LTE lightweight Router use-case for default routes
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:08:16 -0000
There is a particular use-case I am interested in, with respect to the distribution of default routes. A lightweight IPv6 Router, of end user, connects to the LTE network. It needs to acquire several basic parameters such as address and default route. By LTE specifications, this Router uses RS/RA to make an address and DHCPv6-Prefix Delegation to obtain a prefix for use with other devices in its (movable) network. Since it is lightweight, and constrained in hardware ressources available, it may be better served if only one protocol implementation were used, instead of 2, and if a smaller number of smaller messages were used. LTE, M2M and vehicular settings are example applications. Others similar are e.g. satellite-WiFi connectors, and more. Is this use-case already mentioned in the route-option draft? Alex
- [mif] LTE lightweight Router use-case for default… Alexandru Petrescu