Re: [MEXT] using MR-HA tunnel vs. combining BU // Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt

We had this discussion for a long time abd it has concluded some time 
ago already: WG consensus is to use DHCP PD. 

(w/o questioning the value of optimizing RTTs for a procedure which 
isn't in a critical path, e.g., handover)

--julien

On Thursday 11 December 2008, Yungui Wang wrote:
> Hello
>
> Here is one comment about using MR-HA tunnel for DHCP-PD.
>
> In this draft, the MR registration processing needs 3 round trip
> between MR and HA. i. BU to HA; (getting and binding MR_HoA)
> ii. DHCPv6 message over MR-HA tunnel. (getting MNP)
> iii. BU to HA; (binding MNP)
> While, if PD is combined within BU, it is only 1 round trip.
>
> From implementation of viewpoint, the later seems well done prior of
> the former. Maybe I have lost something, can anyone tell me the story
> why we gave up the latter in the new version? Thanks.
>
> B.R.
> Yungui
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>   From: marcelo bagnulo braun
>   To: mext ; Julien Laganier ; Ralph Droms
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:02 PM
>   Subject: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
>
>
>   Hi,
>
>   We now start the WGLC for:
>
>   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO
>   draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
>
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
>
>
>   Please send comments about the draft till the November 19.
>
>   Regards, Julien and marcelo
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   MEXT mailing list
>   MEXT@ietf.org
>   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

-- 
--julien

[ New email address: julien.laganier.IETF@googlemail.com ]
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext