Re: [netext] 答复: RE : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03.txt

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 01 August 2012 23:11 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 C95EE11E81CC for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.543, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152]
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 9y0v5QK3mSai for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1214111E826D for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so8557242ggn.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8Lcu0IIB30wgEkQ9CF6ky7s95xOF7o+BKbBB9c9xy6g=; b=i3Sewy65FlqXuBUmdpyZ6MXJwzDElcBjdHdHnmlYtGpSm56XI+4yAhH349ApVSnkgm 7qMb4FH6nfzi/O1ixJ5/P4NBMvV0IPlEEqQ2uBuviwVusp0BhmKhG6P7NtEbWlbO8Peb EB4+ir9d7h3y21FWDH2qdzrXa5cPWyYNIrSY3ZoRYUjX9nOqFq0+7pPSY3NvqWuk1Bg5 gPH8dW7ZfWeWyuidOpVoJ6HP6WiQakc24pzzquchOHHcx525jySSYQjvVOasyMH6wsVI YwPsgGBlCnSn2+0ea3kKt5scIkozmF1EYwOJOasuhSnaSUivdZmbBzF6AhDbxLQj//rW Uduw==
Received: by 10.60.25.38 with SMTP id z6mr31539748oef.15.1343862697851; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.19.61] (dhcp-133d.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.19.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c6sm3732640obd.22.2012.08.01.16.11.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5019B79E.6060100@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:11:26 -0700
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: netext@ietf.org
References: <OF97EFFCA1.0B541570-ON48257A41.0022FF38-48257A41.00233DC9@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF97EFFCA1.0B541570-ON48257A41.0022FF38-48257A41.00233DC9@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 23:11:45 -0000

Le 19/07/2012 23:24, zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> You can double check the draft which says the R flag is set during
> the /initial attachment procedure/.

I still wonder whether it would not be beneficial to choose another
flag, rather than the existing R flag.  This R flag has a particular
meaning in a particular context.

Or maybe, define this new R flag to be in tight relationship with this
Type being a PBU.  (to avoid confusion of R bit of MIP BU).

Alex

>
> Joy
>
>
> *BOC Michael <michael.boc@cea.fr>*
>
> 2012-07-20 14:17
>
>  收件人 "zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn" <zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn> 抄送
> "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "netext-bounces@ietf.org"
> <netext-bounces@ietf.org> 主题 RE : Re: [netext] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-03.txt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> By the way, if the MAG sends a MNPs option set to 0 in the PBU it is
>  redundant to set a flag to understand it is for a mobile router.
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>