IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible? draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.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 9367411E80E2 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 88lRlH6RxtNE for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87CD11E80C7 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so4362120ghb.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=I2yV8uRUx1Y5lnwSIwSpjw+j04geAFjuLYT8bwSoqMM=; b=Xje2TL2iuM55rT31dYSQZjdGecBY6rfRkK9w/s2C14Fh5z2nuqmqWEPq61sBFOguSC HtrklyTBa4930OVuHRRhzpvkFe+sCuMppklzt+kz59/CA9ngnS2w9Rw0ab+dLmNR9OOJ Y7QeGcTVdpAICbkOW9uJzeqNLSoflaL4jBP6lOVwVJwIIcPVAxuB3NNuQx9QeHe345p5 tlNKYvi+OJYbJN4gHhSdExyp7NmvdInGc6ztAAlu8Og/NiQDqUNzz8rtgZXkaRYz8oDp vXPnYdwZk/s03bQ+mZCFDGuLN+ZMLNYfFM4TOESMRD/vGrYn0/zfuvsqhdbtqMp/PQDg LS2g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.6.229 with SMTP id e5mr133501iga.9.1342210905941; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.207.167 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001501cd6132$9b3e8fc0$d1bbaf40$@av.it.pt>
References: <CAC8QAceDNP1ywXMzxxWM7J2ABeSiaMUcUS42+LkRvUCE-QgOUw@mail.gmail.com> <001501cd6132$9b3e8fc0$d1bbaf40$@av.it.pt>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:21:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcefpsRCY8ypGpO0vsA8XM9=441JD3cOGo4edeqxDM19yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Seil Jeon <seiljeon@av.it.pt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible? draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:21:10 -0000

Hi Seil,

MR as mobile MAG could work.
Is there a draft on this?

Regards,

Behcet

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Seil Jeon <seiljeon@av.it.pt> wrote:
> Hi Behcet,
>
> See inline [SJ].
>
> Regards,
>
> Seil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Behcet Sarikaya
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 7:48 PM
> To: Alexandru Petrescu
> Cc: netext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?
> draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks for bringing this issue up :-).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> NETEXT WG members,
>>
>> It was said at times that PMIP-NEMO is impossible.  PMIP is a core
>> network protocol, where mobility is supported without modifying the MN.
>>
>> Or, in some PMIP-NEMO proposals, the MN _is_ modified: for example it
>> adds DHCP Client on it; or other times it performs HNP Division.
>>
>> BEcause of this there exist statements that PMIP-NEMO is impossible.
>>
>> Do you think there are other reasons why PMIP-NEMO is impossible?
>>
>
> Basically, Nemo requires an MR. MR must be placed at the PMIP MN. This is
> the fundamental problem. I don't think it is possible to make an MR without
> changing MN. So far I have not seen any solutions.
>
> [SJ] In my knowledge, an MN doesn't need to be changed if the MR acts as a
> moving MAG, which has the responsibility of MN detection i.e. MN's attach
> and detach, and sending/receiving PBU/PBA instead of the MN. Regarding on
> this issue, it was described at the Paris meeting I remember.
>
>
> You are talking about a protocol that is designed to not to modify MN.
>
>> Do you think that running DHCP Client on MN is a modification to MN?
>>
>
> Standard clients are OK.
>
> The problem with the WG draft is that it requires an DHCP client extended
> with PD.
>
> I would like draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps to be revised with a
> discussion of this fundamental problem in PMIP-Nemo.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email