Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6?
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 19 August 2011 13:49 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 CB7B721F8AEA for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, 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 p-yYCy5OrbNv for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E421721F8A30 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D56940155 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:50:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E4E6A1D.70302@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:50:21 +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: netext@ietf.org
References: <CA728881.25763%sgundave@cisco.com> <CA72923B.2576F%sgundave@cisco.com> <CABk4tj948RNefsD+HsTmOjEQiO0SejCvCDfP9AV62AHJTuYJrA@mail.gmail.com> <4E0D0C6B-1A81-4330-A9ED-873A2E8F4088@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E0D0C6B-1A81-4330-A9ED-873A2E8F4088@gmail.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
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 13:49:33 -0000
Le 18/08/2011 23:52, Jouni a écrit : > > It is about providing mobility for delegated prefixes. Thanks Jouni. Is it for an MR? If yes, then there may exist other solutions possible as well. Have you considered them? Alex > > - Jouni (as a co-author) > > > On Aug 19, 2011, at 12:00 AM, Jong-Hyouk Lee wrote: > >> Hi, Sri. >> >> Thanks for sharing your opinions. I would like to also hear a reply from Joy. Joy, could you clearly state your views on the question from Alex? >> >> Cheers. >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Sri Gundavelli<sgundave@cisco.com> wrote: >>> #2 Assigning MNP to NEMO Mobile Router = RFC3963. NEMO MR per definition is >>> CMIP enabled. >> >> To ensure the terminology is right: >> >> Delegated Prefix - Prefixes hosted by the mobile node, or the network >> elements behind the mobile node >> >> Hosted Prefixes - prefixes hosted by the PMIPv6 mobility elements on the >> MN-AR access link. These are not delegated prefixes. An IP host behind the >> mobile node cannot use this prefix to generate an address, it wont receive >> RA's with these PIO's. >> >> HNP typically implied prefixes delivered on PMIPv6 signaling plane. If DHCP >> PD is used by MN or a node behind for obtaining prefixes, those are simple >> IP prefixes. However, if mobility is provided to those prefixes, in the form >> of this draft, we can group them as HNP's, as mobility is provided and those >> prefixes are anchored on the LMA, from routing perspective. >> >> MN/MR Distinction is clear I assume. But, NEMO MR, I may have implied, as >> mobile router with CMIP functionality in my prev mail. But, probably NEMO is >> a generic term. Any case, the distinction is understood, with or without >> CMIP ... >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/18/11 9:14 AM, "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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >> >> >> >> -- >> IMARA Team, INRIA, France. >> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random. >> >> #email: hurryon (at) gmail (dot) com || jong-hyouk.lee (at) inria (dot) fr >> #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefi… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jouni
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… zhu.chunhui
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jiang Dong
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jong-Hyouk Lee
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… 马骁
- [netext] 答复: Re: Consensus call: Work on specifyi… zhou.xingyue
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… jonne.soininen
- Re: [netext] 答复: Re: Consensus call: Work on spec… Jong-Hyouk Lee
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… liu dapeng
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Hui Deng
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jong-Hyouk Lee
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Jouni
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] 答复: Re: Consensus call: Work on spec… Daniel Migault
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… jouni korhonen
- Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying p… Alexandru Petrescu