Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 12:29 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 8961B21F8659 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.937
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.937 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 y0L2K7TuuM2u for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9242F21F85E3 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id q6DCUOBk021604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:30:24 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6DCUOMg024076; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:30:24 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id q6DCULwa023163; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:30:24 +0200
Message-ID: <500014DD.2060107@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:30:21 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
References: <CC25799B.2107A%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC25799B.2107A%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?
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, 13 Jul 2012 12:29:50 -0000
Raj, thank you for the reply. I agree mainly with you abou this: DHCP is an independent protocol. Alex Le 13/07/2012 14:08, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit : > > Alex, > > I don¹t know where you have come across statements about PMIP-NEMO > being impossible. It depends to what extent one allows for 'modifications' to MN, for an interpretation at your will of 'modification'. E.g. one is more easier tempted to believe that if ND is there then this is a normal node, but if one adds dhcpv6 then it's more like an added feature and a modification. (it's not the same as in the IPv4 world where DHCPv4 is always there). To this there may be made some remarks in the 3GPP context where apparently dhcpv6-pd is always there, but the picture is not that clear. > Its just FUD. 'FUD' - fear uncertainty and despair? I wouldn't qualify it so... there is some part of truth in it. In some context where I work we consider that the MN has no ND in it (being very simple) and adding ND in it is a 'modification'. > DHCP is an independent protocol and hence has no implications > regarding network based mobility teams design of not modifying the > MN. Yes but: adding DHCPv6 on a MN is considered as modification or not. Alex > > -Raj > > On 7/13/12 4:23 AM, "ext 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? >> >> Do you think that running DHCP Client on MN is a modification to >> MN? >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ netext mailing >> list netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > >
- [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible? Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossib… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossib… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossib… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossib… Basavaraj.Patil