Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01

<Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> Thu, 10 November 2011 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.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 D402921F8B03; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:30:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 hD1xbHdy1ApU; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C9321F8ACE; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAAKUFQY028208; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:30:15 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.25]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:30:01 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-071.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.1.235]) by 008-AM1MMR1-009.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.25]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:30:00 +0100
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, <zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
Thread-Index: AQHMnYpTGqYa7OGEukONGJ+vApALIZWl/ViAgACDXYD//53lgA==
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:29:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE18F95.1560F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <23E4A915-9B63-4EA8-814A-C442EE007A1B@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.138]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <D4D53E60FAD252448753922DEA07CB6D@mgd.nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2011 20:30:01.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[8588D260:01CC9FE7]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip@tools.ietf.org, netext-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01
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, 10 Nov 2011 20:30:18 -0000

Inline:

On 11/10/11 2:21 PM, "ext jouni korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>Raj,
>
>On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:30 PM, zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn wrote:
>
>> > 4. If the prefixes (delegated) are provided by a DHCP server (and not
>> >    the LMA), how does the LMA get informed about these? In the PBU?
>> >    How do you ensure that
>> >    "All the mobile network prefixes managed in the DR MUST be
>> >    reachable via local mobility anchor (LMA)" when they are not
>> >    assigned by the LMA?
>> [Joy]Here it assumes that the LMA can interact with the DHCPv6 Server
>>within some other mechanisms e.g. Radius.
>
>The situation is the same as with PMIP6 and DHCPv6 in general. The DHCPv6
>server and the LMA has to be in sync. There is no need for an interface
>as everything can be managed with configuration. But that does not
>preclude having an interface between the LMA and the DHCPv6 server.

How do you keep the DHCPv6 server and the LMA in sync? Is it considered
out-of-scope and the actual method about how they are synced not
specified? If the DHCPv6 server and LMA are co-located, it could be
easier. If they are not, then it may be an issue. The argument that you
can use a Radius type interface between DHCPv6 server and the LMA is not
good enough. Is there such a specification? The Netext WG has only
specified the RADIUS interactions between a AAA server and the MAG/LMA
entities.

-Raj

>
>- Jouni
>
>
>