[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
> >