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/
- [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefi… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jouni
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… zhu.chunhui
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jiang Dong
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jong-Hyouk Lee
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… 马骁
- [netext] 答复: Re: Consensus call: Work on specifyi… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… jonne.soininen
- Re: [netext] 答复: Re: Consensus call: Work on spec… Jong-Hyouk Lee
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… liu dapeng
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Hui Deng
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jong-Hyouk Lee
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jouni
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] 答复: Re: Consensus call: Work on spec… Daniel Migault
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu