Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Thu, 10 November 2011 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
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 B02C221F8B78; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:36:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 zSzjecmTaIm0; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAF521F8B76; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:36:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1964; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320957372; x=1322166972; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=93qmzh/7d51E+hbuO/XFHPEXL2mP2TcVouIJy73FKjg=; b=U82EfzkUuaHvmN3eKG5k9ziwaTYuJ7o4fRVcx7Qd7JkGvp8P/7B+GUDZ NVXf3bG0PCy20VcBM18tsRVAGBLwrQQ/BQv5ZU/QuqWkpUbH4XmqiOZ6X Si9Fex5WZLRIx1wxXwFyZ4+ahcSlRUSEekbSFbuM78IkMlfQ2XxGMlUCP o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAFU1vE6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABEqiyBBYFyAQEBAwEBAQEPAScCATELEgEIGE8GMAIEAQ0FIodgCJkeAZ5YBIl+BIgPjBmFQYUGh04
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,490,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="13524901"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2011 20:36:12 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAAKaCoS020116; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:36:12 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:36:12 -0800
Received: from 10.21.148.189 ([10.21.148.189]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:36:12 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:36:10 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>, <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, <zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn>
Message-ID: <CAE175BA.2FD9D%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
Thread-Index: AQHMnYpTGqYa7OGEukONGJ+vApALIZWl/ViAgACDXYD//53lgIAAdxN5
In-Reply-To: <CAE18F95.1560F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2011 20:36:12.0576 (UTC) FILETIME=[62CD6A00:01CC9FE8]
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org, netext-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
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, 10 Nov 2011 20:36:13 -0000

I agree. I think we should simply assume the DHCPv6 server and the LMA are
collocated. For the split case, we loosely specify the assumptions and the
interface should be out of scope.


Sri


On 11/10/11 1:29 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
wrote:

> 
> Inline:
> 
> On 11/10/11 2:21 PM, "ext jouni korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Raj,
>> 
>> On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:30 PM, zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn wrote:
>> 
>>>> 4. If the prefixes (delegated) are provided by a DHCP server (and not
>>>>    the LMA), how does the LMA get informed about these? In the PBU?
>>>>    How do you ensure that
>>>>    "All the mobile network prefixes managed in the DR MUST be
>>>>    reachable via local mobility anchor (LMA)" when they are not
>>>>    assigned by the LMA?
>>> [Joy]Here it assumes that the LMA can interact with the DHCPv6 Server
>>> within some other mechanisms e.g. Radius.
>> 
>> The situation is the same as with PMIP6 and DHCPv6 in general. The DHCPv6
>> server and the LMA has to be in sync. There is no need for an interface
>> as everything can be managed with configuration. But that does not
>> preclude having an interface between the LMA and the DHCPv6 server.
> 
> How do you keep the DHCPv6 server and the LMA in sync? Is it considered
> out-of-scope and the actual method about how they are synced not
> specified? If the DHCPv6 server and LMA are co-located, it could be
> easier. If they are not, then it may be an issue. The argument that you
> can use a Radius type interface between DHCPv6 server and the LMA is not
> good enough. Is there such a specification? The Netext WG has only
> specified the RADIUS interactions between a AAA server and the MAG/LMA
> entities.
> 
> -Raj
> 
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext