IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] New draft draft-petrescu-netext-pmip-nemo-00

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 06 March 2012 20:43 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 06A7B21F8770 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:43:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.571, 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 FPnyHfOmrHxv for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:43:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A76421F876A for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7224694013D; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:43:05 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4F5676D7.2070900@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:43:03 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <CB7A9BE5.3D2B5%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB7A9BE5.3D2B5%sgundave@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120306-0, 06/03/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] New draft draft-petrescu-netext-pmip-nemo-00
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, 06 Mar 2012 20:43:18 -0000

Sri,

Thank you for the question.  There are two basic differences:

The WG document on PD assumes that PMIP allocates the prefix, whereas
this draft assumes DHCP allocates  it.

The WG document does not describe a method of dividing the HNP in order
to obtain an MNP, whereas this draft does.

What do you think?

Alex

Le 06/03/2012 01:35, Sri Gundavelli a écrit :
> Hi Alex:
>
> Question. How is this draft different from the WG document on PD ?
>
> Regards Sri
>
>
>
>
> On 3/5/12 1:24 PM, "Alexandru
> Petrescu"<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello netext participants,
>>
>> We have submitted a short Internet Draft:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-netext-pmip-nemo-00
>>
>> It treats of moving networks within a PMIPv6 domain.  It offers
>> two alternative mechanisms:
>>
>> - HNP Division - PMIPv6 is not modified, HNP is divided into two
>> or more MNPs. - Enhancements to PMIPv6 and DHCPv6-PD - Q bit, DHCP
>> allocates MNP whereas PMIP is just informed (DUID=MNID).
>>
>> We are interested in discussion about this draft.  The text is
>> relatively brief now but we can offer clarification depending on
>> interest.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alex _______________________________________________ netext mailing
>> list netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email