Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> Hi Elwyn,
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reviewing the updated
> draft. We will address the two remaining issues. Please
> see inline.
>
>
>   
No problem.. I am stuck in a hotel in Toronto, nit getting to IETF. :-(((

Snipped the first issue as that should be fine.
>
>   
>> Outstanding query: s6.1, bullet 2:  This bullet refers to 
>> '*the* interface 
>> identifier' and suggests that it might be retrieved from a 
>> Router Solicitation. 
>>   My original point was that the IID for IPv6 addresses is 
>> not necessarily 
>> common between the addresses configured on an interface.  My 
>> comment was a 
>> little glib and the authors glossed over the point in their 
>> reply.  I think this 
>> bullet may require clarification to indicate which of the 
>> IIDs would be implied 
>> here.  Particularly if SEND is in use, the IID used for the 
>> link local address 
>> (that would typically be found in the solicitation) will a.s. 
>> differ from the 
>> IID used with the address assigned out of the prefix 
>> allocated by Proxy MIP.  My 
>> original point was to ask the authors to clarify whether 
>> ProxyMIP actually cares 
>> which IID is used and, accordingly, state either that 'it 
>> doesn't matter' or 
>> specifically which IID should be transmitted.
>>
>>
>>     
>
> This is the interface identifier (layer-2) and not the L3 identifier. 
> This is covered in the terminology section, "Mobile Node Interface
> Identifier (MN-Interface-Identifier)". 
>
> The need for the L2 interface identifier (such as MAC address) is
> to predictably identify the interface of a mobile node. The Access
> Technology Type in combination with the interface identifier is
> used as the index field in the BCE. 
>
> Looks like this is not implied. We can point to the
> "MN-Interface-Identifier"  term and that should probably make it
> clear. 
>   
OK.. I think some clarification is required to make sure that you always 
get the same IID.  As specified I didn't grok that it had to be the same 
one from wherever the node roams to.

I think a few extra words will sort that out and then we are done.

Thanks
Elwyn
> Thanks again, for the review. Hopefully this addresses all the issues
> raised by the Gen-art review.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>   
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]