Subject: [Mip4] Host Configuration

From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:35:01 -0500

Hi, all,

We still have not come to a satisfactory conclusion on the
question of host configuration for MIP4 nodes.  Recall that
we had a working group draft on this topic:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-04

But we got a comment during last call that we could potentially
solve this problem with DHCP.  Hui was kind enough to write a draft
on this approach:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-mip4-host-configuration-00.html

Please reply to this note if you have a preference for one draft 
over the other.  We will most likely need to choose one of these
approaches rather than standardize both.

Thanks,

-Pete
--
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:43:21 -0600

I read both drafts and it seems to me that these two drafts are quite
different. Let me explain.

1. draft, draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext, as we know have a very specific
proposal for a new extension which can be used during the MIP
registration to allocate different host configuration parameters.
Although in the past there was a long debate about the use of this
extension which somewhat overlaps with DHCP protocol but I personally
have no issue against this draft which addresses a very specific issue.

2. Concerning draft, draft-deng-mip4-host-configuration, and as we
discussed during the last two IETF meetings, it does not introduce any
new mechanism, however, it explains how RFC3344 and RFC3024 can be used
to deliver DHCP packets to the DHCP server in the home network, in other
words, it is an example on how RFC3344 and RFC3024 can be used to
deliver DHCP packets to the home network and eventually deliver the DHCP
response back to the mobile node. On the other hand, this draft build on
the case that "encapsulating delivery style" is mandated in the FA CoA
case and that is a problem. In other words, the draft does not address
the serious disadvantages of the use of "encapsulating delivery style"
which produces an big overhead on every unicast packet which is required
to be delivered encapsulated to the FA.

Finally, as we discussed in the last IETF meeting,
draft-chakrabarti-mip4-mcbc addresses the handling and delivery of
Multicast Broadcast packets to both the foreign and home network in a
more fundamental way by enabling the negotiation of a new encapsulation
mechanism. In brief it gives the MN the power to define which domain
(foreign or home) is the target for the MCBC packet without the overhead
as in "encapsulating delivery style".

The authors of draft-chakrabarti-mip4-mcbc did not present the document
in the context of host configuration but in a broader scope which
fundamentally addresses all MCBC communication including DHCP.

My 2 cents.

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of McCann Peter-A001034
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Henrik Levkowetz
> Subject: [Mip4] Host Configuration
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> But we got a comment during last call that we could 
> potentially solve this problem with DHCP.  Hui was kind 
> enough to write a draft on this approach:
> 
> Please reply to this note if you have a preference for one 
> draft over the other.  We will most likely need to choose one 
> of these approaches rather than standardize both.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Pete
> --