[netext] 答复: RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03.txt
zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn Fri, 20 July 2012 06:32 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 AAA4C21F8678; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.993
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, 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 B8H0yGwNTsdM; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294FF21F8675; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 232555771751954; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:29:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 29176.6127390430; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:33:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q6K6XB6H091372; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:33:11 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <94D2EEADE1F74740979E8041CBA339380355AC45@EXDAG0-B3.intra.cea.fr>
To: BOC Michael <michael.boc@cea.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: FA8CF2E4:97DA4C3F-48257A41:00236978; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFFA8CF2E4.97DA4C3F-ON48257A41.00236978-48257A41.0023FA80@zte.com.cn>
From: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:32:58 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-07-20 14:33:12, Serialize complete at 2012-07-20 14:33:12
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0023FA7F48257A41_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q6K6XB6H091372
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "netext-bounces@ietf.org" <netext-bounces@ietf.org>, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>, "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: [netext] 答复: RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03.txt
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: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:32:39 -0000
Hi, Please see inline below. BOC Michael <michael.boc@cea.fr> 写于 2012-07-20 14:12:59: > Hey, > > Ok, now I understand that this draft is about using DHCPv6-PD > signalling messages to trigger a specific behavior of PMIPv6 and not > at all about using DHCPv6 and its PD extension to provide MNPs to > PMIPv6 and by extension to the MR. > > Two (more) efficient solutions for this approach: > 1) You don't need DHCPv6 entities (delegating router, DHCPv6 relay > and so on). You just need to intercept DHCPv6-PD related messages > and to enhances LMA to deliver prefixes shorter than 64 bits. [Joy]Yes, you surely can do this. However, this is just a kind of implementation way while we work on a standard way. > 2) You deliver HNPs and MNPs (with prefixes shorter than 64 bits) > for every nodes. This is a couple of lines to add in RFC5213. [Joy]In our scenario, the MNP(s) are assigned only when the MR initiate the DHCPv6-PD procedure. > > Our approach can then be seen as one step further in integrating a > real DHCPv6 architecture in parallel of PMIPv6 to deliver MNPs to > mobile routers. > > Michael > > De : zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn [zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn] > Date d'envoi : vendredi 20 juillet 2012 04:21 > À : BOC Michael > Cc : i-d-announce@ietf.org; internet-drafts@ietf.org; netext@ietf. > org; netext-bounces@ietf.org > Objet : 答复: Re: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03.txt > > Hi, > > The purpose of setting R flag is to indicate the network that > network mobility service is allowed to the mobile node as specified > in section 3.2. In this draft, it just focus on the way to assign > the MNP to the MR based on DHCPv6-PD triggering mechanism. > > Regarding the possible hints in IA_PD(s), I dont get your point very > much. Could you explain more? > > Best Regards, > Joy > > netext-bounces@ietf.org 写于 2012-07-16 17:12:56: > > > Hello all, > > > > Concerning this draft, I would like to know why you need to set the > > R flag in PBU > > (because you don't explain it in the draft) and if your approach is > > to not take > > into account possible hints in IA_PD(s). If this is the case, we > > just have to provide > > MNP(s) at MR attachment with the HNP(s) and we move on another subject. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la > > > part de internet-drafts@ietf.org > > > Envoyé : lundi 16 juillet 2012 03:29 > > > À : i-d-announce@ietf.org > > > Cc : netext@ietf.org > > > Objet : [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03.txt > > > > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > > directories. > > > This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions > > > Working Group of the IETF. > > > > > > Title : Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 > > > Author(s) : Xingyue Zhou > > > Jouni Korhonen > > > Carl Williams > > > Sri Gundavelli > > > Carlos J. Bernardos > > > Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03.txt > > > Pages : 16 > > > Date : 2012-07-15 > > > > > > Abstract: > > > 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. > > > However, > > > Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to a router > > > and > > > managing its IP mobility. This document specifies an extension to > > > Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for supporting network mobility using > > > DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation. > > > > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip > > > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03 > > > > > > A diff from previous version is available at: > > > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03 > > > > > > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netext mailing list > > > netext@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > _______________________________________________ > > netext mailing list > > netext@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > >
- [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03… internet-drafts
- Re: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmi… BOC Michael
- [netext] 答复: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd… zhou.xingyue
- [netext] RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-p… BOC Michael
- [netext] RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-p… BOC Michael
- [netext] 答复: RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-nete… zhou.xingyue
- [netext] 答复: RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-nete… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-nete… BOC Michael
- Re: [netext] 答复: RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-… Alexandru Petrescu