Re: [netlmm] Consensus call: RFC5107 based DHCP message interceptat MAG

Hi Yokota-san,

On 2009/04/13, at 21:02, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:

> Hi Vijay,
>
> Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 4/13/09 1:57 AM, "Hidetoshi Yokota" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rajeev and all,
>>>
>>> I have a bit of concern about the restriction that the DHCP server  
>>> has
>>> to be collocated with the LMA. Some deployment scenario may have
>>> multiple LMAs and one DHCP server in a PMIPv6 domain and there is a
>>> situation where the LMA for some mobile node gets changed to  
>>> another for
>>> failure recovery reason. If RFC5107 can allow this configuration and
>>> handle this situation well, then it's worth keeping it in the  
>>> document.
>>> A further clarification will be helpful as you pointed out, though.
>>
>> LMA relocation while preserving the IP address for the mobile node is
>> something that is not supported even in RFC 5213. So can you  
>> describe the
>> above scenario in more detail?
>
> Here, I'm thinking of a real PMIPv6 deployment not limited to RFC5213.
> 5213 is the base spec and we all know that we need further extensions
> including binding revocations, redirections, etc. The concern I raised
> here is that it would be a bit restrictive if the collocation of the  
> LMA
> and DHCP server is mandated.

I agree. if there is a case to deploy DHCP server solely in PMIP6  
domain,
we need to keep RFC5107 or MAG promiscuous listening. I prefer using  
5107.

>
>
>> If this is a failover case where another LMA takes over for a  
>> failed LMA,
>> and the state is synced between the two, this change should not  
>> even be
>> visible to the MAG or the MN. All the mobility sessions continue as  
>> is.
>
> If the state is synced between the two, yes. But in the collocated  
> case,
> a change of LMA means a change of DHCP server. DHCP and PMIP are
> basically separate things in protocol and operations although their

This is good point.  It's useful to have just normative reference to  
5107.

regards,
ryuji

>
> states should be in sync. Here, I raised a question that this
> collocation is a must or a choice.

>
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Hidetoshi
>
>
>> Vijay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm