Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 21 September 2012 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B6F21F8489 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mmaBl6sIYxzJ for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5138F21F847A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E12A922C60C; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:37:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.29]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id BBE0035C079; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:37:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.29]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:37:16 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:37:14 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
Thread-Index: Ac2XyVbKFShBZeRZT5SmItB66EOwdwAAE88Q
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B1233CA@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40D46C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr1xnF_mQwy-6OAyXRxkcpoNB099tVC+J89ni6wVA+bmSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1xnF_mQwy-6OAyXRxkcpoNB099tVC+J89ni6wVA+bmSw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B1233CAPUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.9.1.82415
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:37:19 -0000

Dear Lorenzo,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

________________________________
De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 09:18
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : IPv6 Ops WG
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
Review and comments are more than welcome.

A couple of comments, having skimmed the draft:

1. Did you consider a requirement to support RFC 4191? Many people are asking for the ability to support more-specific routes, especially in the MIF working group.
[Med] We didn't considered it because there are some assumptions to be made: e.g., do we expect all interfaces are connected to networks managed by the same administrative entity? How to manage conflicts if distinct policies are sent? etc.

2. REQ#28 says the device MUST (no less!) support ND proxy. I don't think it's appropriate to say that an experimental RFC is a requirement. Additionally, ND proxy is not fully baked, and it has issues with certain topologies. We need a better solution than that.
[Med] RFC4389 is the best reference we can quote at this stage. Do you have a pointer to an I-D where these issues are discussed? We can add a pointer to that I-D.

3. REQ#32 says the device must also be an RFC-6204 compliant IPv6 CE router. Are there no conflicts?
[Med] We didn't done that analysis as we are considering also scenarios for fixed-mobile convergence where a CPE can be connected to a fixed network by default and in case of failure switch to the 3GPP network or scenario.
I would see some conflicts if we added a REQ for RFC6204-bis as it lists some transition mechanisms which are not required for mobile networks.