Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Thu, 18 August 2011 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.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 8C0AD21F8B17 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.254
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 dlMI5Ruqb+Op for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70B821F874E for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=3900; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1313686577; x=1314896177; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=s1v8D35xIM0p0fZ3YE3uTaO3t3683uamFlC7TTAMn3U=; b=al5kbatAojy1x5n52tki9xuUIMU4CYg88rhTaElMbkIvHjllD+LQCMPG prT3SmgnZNPuTUfzH9PoRbrvXpO2QoIbaHzEPcW0SH25/nl0Yprb1OTW/ VrxtK9PuAhPMOdp5oyEosr3Sou0hkWQGwEL7PaZj7M9xfYgI/qFzPBIiC g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANhCTU6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABCp3tsd4FAAQEBAQIBAQEBDwEpATEQDQEIGE8GMAEBBAESCRIHh08EmksBnxWGSASHMS+LM4UVhGGHHw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,246,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="14387709"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Aug 2011 16:56:16 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7IGuGmu023827; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:56:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:56:16 -0700
Received: from 10.32.246.212 ([10.32.246.212]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:56:15 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:56:11 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, <netext@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CA72923B.2576F%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
Thread-Index: Acxdwe8x6ThHFsxh8UOICnDQo9uONAABcwq1
In-Reply-To: <CA728881.25763%sgundave@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2011 16:56:16.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[BEA59720:01CC5DC7]
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
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: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:55:23 -0000

> #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per definition is
> CMIP enabled.

To ensure the terminology is right:

Delegated Prefix - Prefixes hosted by the mobile node, or the network
elements behind the mobile node

Hosted Prefixes - prefixes hosted by the PMIPv6 mobility elements on the
MN-AR access link. These are not delegated prefixes. An IP host behind the
mobile node cannot use this prefix to generate an address, it wont receive
RA's with these PIO's.

HNP typically implied prefixes delivered on PMIPv6 signaling plane. If DHCP
PD is used by MN or a node behind for obtaining prefixes, those are simple
IP prefixes. However, if mobility is provided to those prefixes, in the form
of this draft, we can group them as HNP's, as mobility is provided and those
prefixes are anchored on the LMA, from routing perspective.

MN/MR Distinction is clear I assume. But, NEMO MR, I may have implied, as
mobile router with CMIP functionality in my prev mail. But, probably NEMO is
a generic term. Any case, the distinction is understood, with or without
CMIP ...

Sri







On 8/18/11 9:14 AM, "Sri Gundavelli" <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:

> Alex:
> 
> If I may comment.
> 
> 
>> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the goal of
> supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
> 
> #1 Implies, mobility for the delegated prefixes
> 
>> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily to assign
> MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)?  The two goals are distinctive IMHO.
> 
> Assigning HNP to mobile = mobility + delegated prefix (Same as #1)
> 
> #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per definition is
> CMIP enabled.
> 
> 
> So, the draft is supporting #1.
> 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/18/11 8:50 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Raj,
>> 
>> Le 10/08/2011 23:34, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
>>> 
>>> At IETF81, Carl Williams presented the I-D: "Prefix Delegation for
>>> Proxy Mobile IPv6"<draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt>
>>> 
>>> General consensus at the Netext WG meeting was that prefix delegation
>>> is a required feature for PMIP6.
>> 
>> Please specify whether this prefix delegation feature is for the goal of
>> supporting Network Mobility with PMIP?
>> 
>> Or is it to assign the HNP to the Mobile Host (not necessarily to assign
>> MNP for NEMO Mobile Router)?  The two goals are distinctive IMHO.
>> 
>> This to help formulate a problem for prefix delegation for PMIP.
>> 
>> [...]
>>> We are now following up with the questions on the ML.
>>> 
>>> Question to WG:
>>> 
>>> 1. Should the WG specify prefix-delegation support for PMIP6?
>>> 
>>> Yes   [ ]
>>> No    [ ]
>> 
>> Yes, if it is for MNP for Mobile Router.
>> 
>>> 2. Can we adopt as WG document the solution proposed in I-D:
>>> draft-zhou-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt as the starting point of this
>>> feature?
>>> 
>>> Yes   [ ]
>>> No    [ ]
>> 
>> No, unless the problem is clearer.
>> 
>> I hope this helps.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>> 
>>> Please respond by August 18th on the ML.
>>> 
>>> -Chairs
>>> 
>>> Please see the discussion at the IETF81 WG meeting on this topic at:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext