Re: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05.txt
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 08:03 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 55CE721F86A2 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, 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 bPJbuNMX1COB for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7331B21F869E for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 q9N83Keh006059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:03:20 +0200
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 q9N83JKb025085 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:03:20 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id q9N839fW007554 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:03:19 +0200
Message-ID: <50864F3E.5000400@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:03:10 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: netext@ietf.org
References: <20121022231345.8057.44343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121022231345.8057.44343.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05.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: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:03:22 -0000
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, internet-drafts@ietf.org 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 I-D-Announce@ietf.org > 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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05… internet-drafts
- Re: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmi… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmi… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)