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

Jong-Hyouk Lee <jong-hyouk.lee@inria.fr> Thu, 11 August 2011 13:50 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 94A5921F8AFA for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 zkhi0LUuMw6n for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:50:08 -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 05C5421F8AF8 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,355,1309730400"; d="scan'208";a="115594124"
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 11 Aug 2011 15:50:40 +0200
Received: by vxi29 with SMTP id 29so2056419vxi.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.23.2 with SMTP id i2mr10162347vdf.412.1313070639320; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.181.100 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A263F1185D8@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <CA686394.1CF0F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A263F1185D8@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <jong-hyouk.lee@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:50:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CABk4tj9hoN2Swj7uL0_SSix5nVrUO946uDHQrh3pv6fHTTeRyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307d024c058f4e04aa3b155c"
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, 11 Aug 2011 13:50:09 -0000

Q1: Yes.
Q2: Yes.

Comments: As pointed, the use cases should be provided and personally I
would like to introduce the following articles recently published:

1. Lightweight NEtwork MObility within PMIPv6 for Transportation Systems",
IEEE Systems Journal: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2011.2158681
2. Performance Analysis of PMIPv6 based NEtwork MObility for Intelligent
Transportation Systems", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2011.2157949

Cheers.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:08 PM, <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de> wrote:

> Q1: Yes
> Q2: Yes
> Comment: please provide more details on the use case in WG I-D, e.g. the
> phrase
> 'It assumes that a MR [i.e. Mobile Router] is a regular IPv6 router without
> extension for mobility managements.' sounds a bit strange to me ...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Regards
> Dirk
>
>
> [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy
> Mobile IPv6?
>
>
> 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. We gauged the interest in the room to
> adopt this I-D as the starting point of a WG I-D for the PD feature
> and observed the following:
>
> "
> Chairs: how many people think the problem is relevant: 19
> How many have read it: 7
> How many think that the proposed solution in the draft can be starting
> point to work on the problem?
> In favor: 7 ;  Opposed: 1
> "
>
> 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    [ ]
>
> 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    [ ]
>
> 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
>



-- 
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/