Re: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05.txt

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for reviewing the spec and appreciate your comments. Please see
inline.




On 10/23/12 1:03 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I noticed the addition of a new option to PBU: Delegated Mobile Network
>Prefix Option.
>
>Arguably a new option in PBU may make sense if the existing RFC5213 Home
>Network Prefix Option can not be reused to communicate this 'delegated'
>prefix.

HNP option is intended for MN-MAG link and while we need a prefix for
delegation. Also quite a bit of LMA/MAG logic is tied to the existing HNP
option. By separating the two we thought it will avoid any ambiguity and
will easier for implementors to build this.


>
>But it has a GRE key in it... should we all implement it (even if set to
>0)?

If its set to 0, you can ignore it. Generally not needed when overlapping
IP is not in use.



>
>Could the DMNP option be present in PBU and the HNP option absent?

Yes. The HNP option is for the MR-MAG link. The prefix is hosted on that
link. MR can continue to obtain IPv6 addresses from the HNP prefixes
hosted by the MAG and it can obtain delegated prefixes from the DMNP
option.



>
>Also I notice the addition of IPv4 (DMNP can be IPv4 or IPv6).  Is there
>a particular form of IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation that is preferred?


Any standard encapsulation. GRE-IPv4, GRE-IPv6, IPv4-IPv4, IPv4-IPv6.
Standard modes that we support in RFC5213 and RFC5844.
This is a good comment. We will add few lines on the encapsulation modes.


Regards
Sri


>



On 10/23/12 1:03 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I noticed the addition of a new option to PBU: Delegated Mobile Network
>Prefix Option.
>
>Arguably a new option in PBU may make sense if the existing RFC5213 Home
>Network Prefix Option can not be reused to communicate this 'delegated'
>prefix.
>
>But it has a GRE key in it... should we all implement it (even if set to
>0)?
>
>Could the DMNP option be present in PBU and the HNP option absent?
>
>Also I notice the addition of IPv4 (DMNP can be IPv4 or IPv6).  Is there
>a particular form of IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation that is preferred?
>
>Alex
>
>Le 23/10/2012 01:13, [e-mail] a écrit :
>>
>> 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-05.txt Pages
>> : 19 Date            : 2012-10-22
>>
>> 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-05
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing
>> list [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft
>> directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>netext mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext