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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 16:55
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : IPv6 Ops WG
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
>
>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

Med: I added a REQ for 4191 as indicated here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg14349.html. 

>
>> 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.

Med: I'm referring to a CPE which can be connected to cellular network on purpose.

>
>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.

Med: As you know, the notion of FMC is too vague. Applogies if I used that term which induced confusion. The scenario I was describing is: a CPE can connect to both fixed and wirelss network based on the some criteria (failure, offload via mobile or fixed, etc.).