Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06
zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn Mon, 20 May 2013 09:39 UTC
Return-Path: <zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn>
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 5235421F8EA6; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 X1tJjiRVbg1L; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A20F21F8D94; Mon, 20 May 2013 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id BB9B9B18AC; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:39:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 4397A71C78C; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:39:02 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id r4K9cvlc070581; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:38:57 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <CAA5F1T3X29yeRBgzd4aq3QnkA80Ov-7JBf2K5O__nTRSa1ZeqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 0B4B4ADC:0FE7B8A3-48257B71:0032E28E; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF0B4B4ADC.0FE7B8A3-ON48257B71.0032E28E-48257B71.0035066F@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:38:56 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2013-05-20 17:38:57, Serialize complete at 2013-05-20 17:38:57
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0035066648257B71_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn r4K9cvlc070581
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.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-pmip6-06
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: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:39:44 -0000
Hello Raj, Thanks for your review. A new version (-08) of the draft has been submitted. Your comments below are addressed in this version. The draft is ready for WGLC now. Thanks. Best Regards, Joy Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> 发件人: netext-bounces@ietf.org 2013-04-04 01:59 收件人 "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org> 抄送 "draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org> 主题 [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip6-06 Questions: 1. In the terminology section: "The DMNP is an IPv4 or an IPv6 prefix delegated to a mobile router and advertised in the mobile network." What is the mobile network being refered to in this statement? Is it the PMIP6 domain itself? Or is it the network that the mobile router is hosting? 2. In Sec 4.3.1: "It is possible that the delegated prefix(es) may have been assigned to the MAG by the LMA during this procedure of PMIPv6 tunnel establishment. That is the MAG may include one (or more) Delegated Mobile Network Prefix (DMNP) mobility options which MUST be set to the unspecified IPv6 address "::" in the PBU to request the delegated prefix(es). The LMA assigns a new set of DMNP(s) in PBA message." Not sure what your assumptions are here. Why does the LMA assign delegated prefix(es) during normal RFC5213 PMIP6 tunnel establishment procedures? What would cause the MAG to include the DMNP option in the PBU at this stage (Step 2) of the session? 3. In Sec 4.3.1: " The mobile router, acting as a "Requesting Router" as described in [RFC3633], sends a DHCPv6 SOLICIT message including one or more IA_PD option(s) to the mobile access gateway (which has a "DHCPv6 Server" function) to acquire the delegated prefix(es)." Is there an assumption that the MAG is also the DHCPv6 server? The MAG could be a DHCP relay as well, right? 4. In Sec 4.3.1, step 5: "The LMA must set up forwarding for the delegated prefixes as reachable through the PMIPv6 tunnel." The LMA may or may not assign these delegated prefixes. The MAG could be the one assigning the delegated prefixes as per the description. Are those prefixes routable by the LMA? 5. In Sec 4.4.1, step 4: "If the mobile access gateway does not know the delegated prefix(es), then the delegated mobile network prefix in the DMNP option(s) MUST be set to the unspecified IPv6 address "::", " How would the MAG know the delegated prefix(es)? Unless it is just renewing the assigned prefix(es)? 6. Is the assumption that the DHCP server functionality resides either at the MAG or the LMA in this I-D? 7. In Sec 6.2 you state: "In order to receive these packets, the local mobility anchor MUST be the topological anchor of the MR's delegated mobile network prefix(es)." This should be made clear up front in order to avoid confusion about how forwarding is accomplished. Editorial: s/Proxy Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility signaling, being the network responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host./ Proxy Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility signaling. Mobility elements in the network are responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host. s/However, Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to a router and managing its IP mobility./However, Proxy Mobile IPv6 lacks the ability to assign a prefix to a router and manage its IP mobility. s/and be able to obtain IP mobility support for those IP addresses./ and enable IP mobility support for the assigned IP address or prefixes. s/However, this network-based mobility management support is specific to an IP host and currently there is no such network-based mobility management support for a mobile router with a cluster of IP hosts behind it./However, the Proxy Mobile IPv6 based solution for network-based mobility management is specific to IP hosts and does not provide similar functionality for a mobile router with a cluster of IP hosts behind it. -Raj _______________________________________________ netext mailing list netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
- [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-… Basavaraj Patil