IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] about the mMAG draft, and network mobility for PMIP

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 07 November 2012 19:48 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 4143B21F88FA for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:48:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KATn8DqbP2xp for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:48:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0680521F868F for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:48:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id qA7JmGfH025809 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:48:16 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA7JmGwX025127; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:48:16 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (arletty1-201-49.intra.cea.fr [132.166.201.49]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id qA7Jm9nf025472; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 20:48:15 +0100
Message-ID: <509ABAF8.2050909@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:48:08 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Seil Jeon <seiljeon@av.it.pt>
References: <5098376A.9080300@gmail.com> <00b701cdbc21$7a103e80$6e30bb80$@av.it.pt>
In-Reply-To: <00b701cdbc21$7a103e80$6e30bb80$@av.it.pt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] about the mMAG draft, and network mobility for PMIP
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: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:48:20 -0000

Le 06/11/2012 14:20, Seil Jeon a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks for  your comment. Please see [Seil] inline.
>
> Regards, Seil
>
> -----Original Message----- From: netext-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 10:02 PM To: netext@ietf.org Subject:
> [netext] about the mMAG draft, and network mobility for PMIP
>
> I wanted to say at the mic.
>
> I read this mMAG draft.  I also read the netext wg ig pmip prefix
> delegation.  Additioally, I co-authored another draft about pmip and
> network mobility.
>
> I think overall we may have an issue here about the lack of a
> problemm statement draft for pmip network mobility.  I do not
> consider it blocking but it does backfire a bit here, if I can say
> so.
>
> One interesting aspect of mMAG (other than that it can work) is that
> it does not use DHCP at all.  You Raj asked which operator would be
> interested in this mMAG concept - well any which does not implement
> DHCP-PD today, and there are many I think.
>
> [Seil] As I told after the meeting, PMIPv6 specified stateless IP
> address configuration, right? And I believe we don't need to limit IP
> address configuration method with DHCP only in network mobility, even
> on business model. Main issue, in operator perspective, would not be
> the use of DHCP or not but how to arrange NEMO concept aligned with
> existing PMIPv6 protocol.

Ok, understood.  I can understand some operators may prefer to use ND to
auto-configure addresses on the Mobile Host, as well as on Mobile
Routers.  The mMAG solution you presented seemed to realize MRs with
just using ND to configure address on MR, without DHCP PD.  And without
PD in RA either.  It just uses double encapsulation.  Which could be
acceptable some times.

Alex

>
> One differentiating advantageous aspect in the netext wg item pmip
> prefix delegation is that it delegates a v6 as well as a v4 prefix.
> But it has the inconvenient of requiring mandatorily the GRE
> encapsulation (other kind sof encapsulaiton exist as well.
>
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________ netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email