Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:13:45 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6
	Author(s)       : Xingyue Zhou
                          Jouni Korhonen
                          Carl Williams
                          Sri Gundavelli
                          Carlos J. Bernardos
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2012-10-22

Abstract:
   Proxy Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without requiring
   its participation in any mobility signaling, being the network
   responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host.  However,
   Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to a router and
   managing its IP mobility.  This document specifies an extension to
   Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for supporting network mobility using
   DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:03:10 +0200

Hi,

I noticed the addition of a new option to PBU: Delegated Mobile Network
Prefix Option.

Arguably a new option in PBU may make sense if the existing RFC5213 Home
Network Prefix Option can not be reused to communicate this 'delegated'
prefix.

But it has a GRE key in it... should we all implement it (even if set to 0)?

Could the DMNP option be present in PBU and the HNP option absent?

Also I notice the addition of IPv4 (DMNP can be IPv4 or IPv6).  Is there
a particular form of IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation that is preferred?

Alex

Le 23/10/2012 01:13, [email-masked] a écrit :
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility
> Extensions Working Group of the IETF.
>
> Title           : Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s)
> : Xingyue Zhou Jouni Korhonen Carl Williams Sri Gundavelli Carlos J.
> Bernardos Filename        : draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-05.txt Pages
> : 19 Date            : 2012-10-22
>
> Abstract: Proxy Mobile IPv6 enables IP mobility for a host without
> requiring its participation in any mobility signaling, being the
> network responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the host.
> However, Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not support assigning a prefix to a
> router and managing its IP mobility.  This document specifies an
> extension to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for supporting network
> mobility using DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing
> list [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft
> directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:31:13 +0000

Hi Alex,

Thanks for reviewing the spec and appreciate your comments. Please see
inline.

>Network Prefix Option can not be reused to communicate this 'delegated'

HNP option is intended for MN-MAG link and while we need a prefix for
delegation. Also quite a bit of LMA/MAG logic is tied to the existing HNP
option. By separating the two we thought it will avoid any ambiguity and
will easier for implementors to build this.

>But it has a GRE key in it... should we all implement it (even if set to

If its set to 0, you can ignore it. Generally not needed when overlapping
IP is not in use.

>Could the DMNP option be present in PBU and the HNP option absent?

Yes. The HNP option is for the MR-MAG link. The prefix is hosted on that
link. MR can continue to obtain IPv6 addresses from the HNP prefixes
hosted by the MAG and it can obtain delegated prefixes from the DMNP
option.

>a particular form of IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation that is preferred?

Any standard encapsulation. GRE-IPv4, GRE-IPv6, IPv4-IPv4, IPv4-IPv6.
Standard modes that we support in RFC5213 and RFC5844.
This is a good comment. We will add few lines on the encapsulation modes.

Regards
Sri

On 10/23/12 1:03 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>netext mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext