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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 19/08/2011 15:48, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
> Le 18/08/2011 23:03, [e-mail] a écrit :
>>
>> Alex,
>>
>> Does Sri's comment address your question?
>
> It discusses about what the problem is. Towards that end I thank him.
>
> But it is still not clear to me the goal of this draft. What problem
> does it address?
>
> - is it to support Mobile Routers (LFNs behind MR) in a PMIP domain?
> - is it to assign the typical HNP to a PMIP Mobile Host? (PMIP spec
> does not tell how LMA obtains these prefixes, and DHCP-PD is a good
> tool).
> - is it to do both above?
>
> Depending on these two goals there are various mechanisms which can be
> useful, not only DHCP-PD. For example, there was a bitwise split
> solution presented by Suresh at a plenary some IETFs ago.
                                     ^^^^^^^ I meant intarea not plenary.

Alex

>
> Alex
>
>>
>> -Raj
>>
>> On 8/18/11 11:14 AM, "ext Sri Gundavelli"<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Alex:
>>>
>>> If I may comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the
>>>> goal of
>>> supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
>>>
>>> #1 Implies, mobility for the delegated prefixes
>>>
>>>> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily
>>>> to assign
>>> MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)? The two goals are distinctive IMHO.
>>>
>>> Assigning HNP to mobile = mobility + delegated prefix (Same as #1)
>>>
>>> #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per
>>> definition is CMIP enabled.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, the draft is supporting #1.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/18/11 8:50 AM, "Alexandru
>>> Petrescu"<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Raj,
>>>>
>>>> Le 10/08/2011 23:34, [e-mail] a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the
>>>> goal of supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
>>>>
>>>> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily
>>>> to assign MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)? The two goals are
>>>> distinctive IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> This to help formulate a problem for prefix delegation for PMIP.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> 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 [ ]
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if it is for MNP for Mobile Router.
>>>>
>>>>> 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 [ ]
>>>>
>>>> No, unless the problem is clearer.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ netext mailing
>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ netext mailing list
>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>