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

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Q1:YES
Q2:YES
I agree the use case should be more detailed.
Regards,
Daniel

2011/8/16 <[e-mail]>

>
> Hello Lee,
> Many thanks for your support. I will read the reference materials you
> provide. Regarding the comment, I will details the use case in the future
> version.
>
> Best Regards,
> Joy
>
>
>  *Jong-Hyouk Lee <[e-mail]>*
>
> 2011-08-11 下午 09:50
>   收件人
> [e-mail]
> 抄送
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> 主题
> Re: [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy
> Mobile IPv6?
>
>
>
>
> Q1: Yes.
> Q2: Yes.
>
> Comments: As pointed, the use cases should be provided and personally I
> would like to introduce the following articles recently published:
>
> 1. Lightweight NEtwork MObility within PMIPv6 for Transportation Systems",
> IEEE Systems Journal: *http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2011.2158681*<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2011.2158681>
> 2. Performance Analysis of PMIPv6 based NEtwork MObility for Intelligent
> Transportation Systems", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology: *
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2011.2157949*<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2011.2157949>
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:08 PM, <*[e-mail]*<[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> Q1: Yes
> Q2: Yes
> Comment: please provide more details on the use case in WG I-D, e.g. the
> phrase
> 'It assumes that a MR [i.e. Mobile Router] is a regular IPv6 router without
> extension for mobility managements.' sounds a bit strange to me ...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Regards
> Dirk
>
>
> [netext] Consensus call: Work on specifying prefix delegation for Proxy
> Mobile IPv6?
>
>
> 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. We gauged the interest in the room to
> adopt this I-D as the starting point of a WG I-D for the PD feature
> and observed the following:
>
> "
> Chairs: how many people think the problem is relevant: 19
> How many have read it: 7
> How many think that the proposed solution in the draft can be starting
> point to work on the problem?
> In favor: 7 ;  Opposed: 1
> "
>
> 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    [ ]
>
> 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    [ ]
>
> 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*<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list*
> **[e-mail]* <[e-mail]>*
> **https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list*
> **[e-mail]* <[e-mail]>*
> **https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext*<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/*<https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
[phone]