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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

Please kindly see inline.

Regards,

Behcet

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:37 AM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Dear Lorenzo,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> ________________________________
> De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 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, <[e-mail]> 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.
>

I support Lorenzo on this. I think that RFC 4191 should be considered.
We have a draft on improving RFC 4191 which will make it more relevant
to UEs:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01

> 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 am confused about this fmc scenario.
When the device is connected to a fixed network, it does not need to
be CE router because in the fixed network there is already a CE
router.

What you are considering is a complicated scenario where the device
(UE) was CE router (because some IPv4-IPv6 transition technology
required it) and then it connects to a fixed network.

I am not sure if we should consider such scenarios. All I can say that
in fmc, UE needs to be UE not a CE router.