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
>