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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 19 August 2011 13:48 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 5D98821F888A for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.092
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 m6PdIzd5gUha for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3BF21F884C for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C434940138; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E4E69C4.3000106@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:48:52 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
References: <CA72E825.1D5E0%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA72E825.1D5E0%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110819-0, 19/08/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: netext@ietf.org
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:48:05 -0000

Le 18/08/2011 23:03, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
>
> Alex,
>
> Does Sri's comment address your question?

It discusses about what the problem is.  Towards that end I thank him.

But it is still not clear to me the goal of this draft.  What problem
does it address?

- is it to support Mobile Routers (LFNs behind MR) in a PMIP domain?
- is it to assign the typical HNP to a PMIP Mobile Host? (PMIP spec
   does not tell how LMA obtains these prefixes, and DHCP-PD is a good
   tool).
- is it to do both above?

Depending on these two goals there are various mechanisms which can be
useful, not only DHCP-PD.  For example, there was a bitwise split
solution presented by Suresh at a plenary some IETFs ago.

Alex

>
> -Raj
>
> On 8/18/11 11:14 AM, "ext 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
>
>