IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 10:02 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 8649421F86AA for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 8KpDbTQ8fBlE for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A944A21F86A8 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1710; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342173800; x=1343383400; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=m/p1s/JvUhvinoKa3AOO7jX9egQSRgTP2G7BLMEFN6A=; b=iuhRSZxioQoZpbi2D/I/fAydVamPcWF00ByU0yLnyF5PZ8DeRlcqYiuj 8Sxy3MhwK68p9k66Ahq0un4f/6/H4nww+qs4XRP34cNkuxhLVy9Va6awp CcXHrAzSK/kpPRenrXVVhgXo6RAESDgoFGyvt91os154sh+lG9u4xW/pT o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEDx/0+tJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABFuB6BB4IgAQEBAwEBAQEPASc0CwULAgEINhAnCyUCBA4FIodlBgubMaATBIs8hRZgA5U6jiCBZoJf
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,579,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="101536829"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2012 10:03:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6DA3JIX017444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:03:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.20]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:03:19 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?
Thread-Index: AQHNYNk41DDwxEC9MEKKPEnLuUBjrZcnT5IA
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:03:19 +0000
Message-ID: <E51080E7-EFD9-439E-B0D5-C9266E90F152@cisco.com>
References: <4FFFE91F.8030006@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FFFE91F.8030006@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.91.213]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19036.006
x-tm-as-result: No--33.179400-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C3C41577F84FDD4C865CEB9CADDD5661@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible?
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: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:02:45 -0000

Alex:

1.) For allowing a mobile node to obtain an IPv4 address, it requires DHCPv4 client functionality based on RFC-2131. This is already assumed in RFC-5844.
2.) For allowing a mobile router to obtains a delegated IPv6 prefix, it requires DHCPv6 client functionality based on RFC-3315/RFC-3633, so it can obtains a delegated prefix.

In either of the above cases, we are not "changing" the client. We are requiring standard DHCP client functionality for obtaining address configuration. 

Now, we should really move the discussions to focus on the proposal you have. Ignoring, if we require a client change, or not, we need to analyze this idea of address splitting. If SLAAC can be enabled on that and if there are no issues, the approach can be relevant for DSMIP based systems, PMIP-based, both, wireline, or all/none. We can focus on the procedural aspects later.



Regards
Sri



On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> NETEXT WG members,
> 
> It was said at times that PMIP-NEMO is impossible.  PMIP is a core
> network protocol, where mobility is supported without modifying the MN.
> 
> Or, in some PMIP-NEMO proposals, the MN _is_ modified: for example it
> adds DHCP Client on it; or other times it performs HNP Division.
> 
> BEcause of this there exist statements that PMIP-NEMO is impossible.
> 
> Do you think there are other reasons why PMIP-NEMO is impossible?
> 
> Do you think that running DHCP Client on MN is a modification to MN?
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status