Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:54:33 -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 Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
	Author(s)       : Xingyue Zhou
                          Jouni Korhonen
                          Carl Williams
                          Sri Gundavelli
                          Carlos J. Bernardos
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-09.txt
	Pages           : 27
	Date            : 2013-06-18

Abstract:
   This specification defines extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol
   for allowing a mobile router in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to obtain
   delegated IP prefixes for its attached mobile networks.  The mobility
   entities in the network will provide network-based mobility
   management support for those delegated IP prefixes just as how IP
   mobility support is provided for the mobile node's home address.
   Even as the mobile router performs a handoff and changes its network
   point of attachment, mobility support is ensured for all the
   delegated IP prefixes and for all the IP nodes in the mobile network
   that use IP address configuration from those delegated IP prefixes.

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-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-09

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:45:08 +0200

Hello,

The functionality offered to the Mobile Router, as described in this
draft, is similar if not the same as what the 64share draft does
draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-07 behaviour called 'IPv6 tethering' and
witnessed on smartphones on cellular operators.

A deployer of Mobile Routers faces thus two alternatives: should use
64share exclusively on the smartphone?  Or should deploy PMIP-PD in the
infrastructure?  It's pointless to do both.

Remark also that 64share v6ops discussion seems to have an oppinion with
respect to DHCPv6-PD (it is the right thing to do), yet no oppinion
about PMIP-PD.

Given these aspects, I am surprised there is no reference from one draft
to the other.

Alex

Le 18/06/2013 18:54, [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.
>
> Author(s)       : Xingyue Zhou Jouni Korhonen Carl Williams Sri
> Gundavelli Carlos J. Bernardos Filename        :
> draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-09.txt Pages           : 27 Date
> : 2013-06-18
>
> Abstract: This specification defines extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6
> protocol for allowing a mobile router in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain
> to obtain delegated IP prefixes for its attached mobile networks.
> The mobility entities in the network will provide network-based
> mobility management support for those delegated IP prefixes just as
> how IP mobility support is provided for the mobile node's home
> address. Even as the mobile router performs a handoff and changes its
> network point of attachment, mobility support is ensured for all the
> _______________________________________________ netext mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:39:35 +0300

> witnessed on smartphones on cellular operators.

Obviously we are and were aware of this all the time..

> infrastructure?  It's pointless to do both.

You are missing one thing here. What NETEXT is doing is specific to
PMIPv6 and fixes/clarifies a specific issue related to prefix delegation.

> Given these aspects, I am surprised there is no reference from one draft

Because there is no need. The v6ops work is independent of what NETEXT is
doing and what NETEXT is doing cannot prohibit an operator deploying what
v6ops is defining..

- Jouni

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:23:27 +0200

> Obviously we are and were aware of this all the time..

That is good.  But also obviously if one is done the other is not needed.

> PMIPv6 and fixes/clarifies a specific issue related to prefix delegation.

I thought both were specific to IPv6.

> doing and what NETEXT is doing cannot prohibit an operator deploying what

I am not going then to ask why NETEXT is doing what is doing, neither v6ops.

But it is surprising these two alternatives realize the same 
functionality.  Whether you want to agree to this or not is another 
matter :-)

Alex