Le 09/09/2010 07:54, Wassim Haddad a écrit :
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network
Prefix to the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
However, here are a couple of missing points.
One missing point is about how will the Mobile Router configure its
default route on the home link? I thought Prefix Delegation would
bring DHCP in the picture and would allow MR to synthesize a
default route even though RAs are absent. But I now realize that
a DHCPv6-PD implementation (and std?) does not allow a router (MR)
to synthesize its default route (neither RA does, nor DHCPv6-nonPD
does).
=> Am not sure I understand from your comment where the problem
really lies. If neither RA does the job nor DHCPv6 then why do you
think this problem (if it is really a problem) should be adressed in
this particular draft and not in a more general way?
Right. I am not sure how could that more general way be. What do you
mean by a more general way?
Why this particular draft? Prior to DHCPv6-PD came into picture there
was only one way to configure the MNP in the moving network: manual
config. If we say manual config then we can also add the default route
manually. Now we are ready to have SLAAC+DHCP, and as such manual
config seems to be quitting the picture. YEt there's no means to
configure automatically the default route at home (it's a Router!).
NEMO-DHCPv6-PD could have been a good place where to say how the default
route is configured on the MR at home, since it is _almost_ entirely
automatic. That's why I call it a missing point.
Alex
Wassim H.
Another missing point is that this spec talks _only_ one specific
case where DHCPv6-PD is used _without_ a real Relay: the MR is
Client and Relay and the HA is the Server DR. My deployment is
different: the MR is not the Relay, just Client; and the Server DR
is not HA. For this to work there are some modifications needed
on the DHCPv6 Relay implementation and std (manage the the
allocated prefix in the Relay's routing table).
I believe this model of deploying DHCPv6-PD (HA is not Server,
Client is not Relay) is inline with existing DHCPv4 deployments
and that gives an easy v6 migration path.
There are several ways of addressing these two missing points.
Alex
Le 07/09/2010 17:36, The IESG a écrit :
The IESG has received a request from the Mobility EXTensions for
IPv6 WG (mext) to consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO '
<draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive
comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2010-09-21.
Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In
either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to
allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17328&rfc_flag=0
No IPR declarations were found that appear related to this I-D.
_______________________________________________ IETF-Announce
mailing list IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Regards,
Wassim H.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf