Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

Jong-Hyouk Lee <jong-hyouk.lee@inria.fr> Thu, 18 August 2011 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jong-hyouk.lee@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D8F21F8B7C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.716, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 L3UvefdAmiub for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F02921F86EA for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,247,1312149600"; d="scan'208";a="116242623"
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com ([209.85.212.44]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 18 Aug 2011 23:00:33 +0200
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2311254vws.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.24.9 with SMTP id q9mr42372vdf.54.1313701232118; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.185.73 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA72923B.2576F%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <CA728881.25763%sgundave@cisco.com> <CA72923B.2576F%sgundave@cisco.com>
From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <jong-hyouk.lee@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:00:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CABk4tj948RNefsD+HsTmOjEQiO0SejCvCDfP9AV62AHJTuYJrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>, zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9d90480c7f04aacde75f
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:59:42 -0000

Hi, Sri.

Thanks for sharing your opinions. I would like to also hear a reply from
Joy. Joy, could you clearly state your views on the question from Alex?

Cheers.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:

> > #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per definition
> is
> > CMIP enabled.
>
> To ensure the terminology is right:
>
> Delegated Prefix - Prefixes hosted by the mobile node, or the network
> elements behind the mobile node
>
> Hosted Prefixes - prefixes hosted by the PMIPv6 mobility elements on the
> MN-AR access link. These are not delegated prefixes. An IP host behind the
> mobile node cannot use this prefix to generate an address, it wont receive
> RA's with these PIO's.
>
> HNP typically implied prefixes delivered on PMIPv6 signaling plane. If DHCP
> PD is used by MN or a node behind for obtaining prefixes, those are simple
> IP prefixes. However, if mobility is provided to those prefixes, in the
> form
> of this draft, we can group them as HNP's, as mobility is provided and
> those
> prefixes are anchored on the LMA, from routing perspective.
>
> MN/MR Distinction is clear I assume. But, NEMO MR, I may have implied, as
> mobile router with CMIP functionality in my prev mail. But, probably NEMO
> is
> a generic term. Any case, the distinction is understood, with or without
> CMIP ...
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/18/11 9:14 AM, "Sri Gundavelli" <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > Alex:
> >
> > If I may comment.
> >
> >
> >> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the goal of
> > supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
> >
> > #1 Implies, mobility for the delegated prefixes
> >
> >> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily to assign
> > MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)?  The two goals are distinctive IMHO.
> >
> > Assigning HNP to mobile = mobility + delegated prefix (Same as #1)
> >
> > #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per definition
> is
> > CMIP enabled.
> >
> >
> > So, the draft is supporting #1.
> >
> >
> > Sri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/18/11 8:50 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Raj,
> >>
> >> Le 10/08/2011 23:34, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> At IETF81, Carl Williams presented the I-D: "Prefix Delegation for
> >>> Proxy Mobile IPv6"<draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt>
> >>>
> >>> General consensus at the Netext WG meeting was that prefix delegation
> >>> is a required feature for PMIP6.
> >>
> >> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the goal of
> >> supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
> >>
> >> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily to assign
> >> MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)?  The two goals are distinctive IMHO.
> >>
> >> This to help formulate a problem for prefix delegation for PMIP.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>> We are now following up with the questions on the ML.
> >>>
> >>> Question to WG:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Should the WG specify prefix-delegation support for PMIP6?
> >>>
> >>> Yes   [ ]
> >>> No    [ ]
> >>
> >> Yes, if it is for MNP for Mobile Router.
> >>
> >>> 2. Can we adopt as WG document the solution proposed in I-D:
> >>> draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt as the starting point of this
> >>> feature?
> >>>
> >>> Yes   [ ]
> >>> No    [ ]
> >>
> >> No, unless the problem is clearer.
> >>
> >> I hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Please respond by August 18th on the ML.
> >>>
> >>> -Chairs
> >>>
> >>> Please see the discussion at the IETF81 WG meeting on this topic at:
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> netext mailing list
> >>> netext@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netext mailing list
> >> netext@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > netext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>



-- 
IMARA Team, INRIA, France.
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random.

#email: hurryon (at) gmail (dot) com || jong-hyouk.lee (at) inria (dot) fr
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/