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

zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn Thu, 11 August 2011 02:33 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 6A0375E800D; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.460, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, 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 jlL+vcqeU1SW; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D835E800C; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 152363502467742; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:27:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 21414.5406157678; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:34:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p7B2YEJZ071472; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:34:14 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <CA686394.1CF0F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 5FF8152F:7DE95A2C-482578E9:00081794; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF5FF8152F.7DE95A2C-ON482578E9.00081794-482578E9.000DFC8D@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:33:54 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-08-11 10:34:15, Serialize complete at 2011-08-11 10:34:15
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000DFC8C482578E9_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn p7B2YEJZ071472
Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext-bounces@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 02:33:52 -0000

Question to WG: 

1. Should the WG specify prefix-delegation support for PMIP6?

Yes   [X ]
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   [X ]
No    [ ]



<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> 
发件人:  netext-bounces@ietf.org
2011-08-11 上午 05:34

收件人
<netext@ietf.org>
抄送

主题
[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