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

[<[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext