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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 18/08/2011 23:03, [e-mail] 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"<[e-mail]> 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"<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Raj,
>>>
>>> Le 10/08/2011 23:34, [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ netext mailing
>>> list [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>
>> _______________________________________________ netext mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>