Subject: RE: new revision ofcellular host draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:02:41 +0300

Hi, Toshi!

This is unfortunately an issue we could not give 'an exact answer' in our draft. At least these possibilitites (I'm not commenting anything on their pros and cons) exist at the moment:

- use of stateless DNS discovery

- use of stateful DNS discovery (i.e. a DHCPv6-based mechanism)

- use a PPP based mechanism in PDP context activation (this kind of mechanism is existing / in use for IPv4: RFC1877)

 (these three are not in 'RFC-level' yet...)

- manual configuration in the terminal, i.e. typing the DNS server address manually (which is not very pleasant...)

- receiving the configuration information OTA, i.e. using SMS to configure that information

BR,
	-Juha W.-

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Toshi Yamasaki [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 17 May, 2002 20:14
To: Hesham Soliman (ERA)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: new revision ofcellular host draft

Just a quick question. How cellular hosts discover DNS cache servers'
addresses?

> Hi all,
>
> I have submitted a new revision of the draft
> today. Until it is pulished by the IETF you
> can find it at
> http://standards.ericsson.net/Hesham/draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-02.txt
>
> We hope that this draft will be ready for WG last call
> when it appears on the IETF pages.
>
> Thanks
> Hesham
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Toshi Yamasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:33:25 +0900

Hi, Juha!!

Yes, this is one of the most important but difficult issues to solve. I
guess you agree that one or fewer mechanisms are better to achieve a real
autoconfiguration :-)

In my scenario for fixed access services like DSL or FTTH, I assume:

- PE(NAS) -> CPE(Customer's Router) : stateful mechanism like DHCPv6
- CPE -> HOSTs : stateless mechanism (itojun-thaler?) or stateful
mechanism(DHCPv6?),  according to "O" bit of RA

IMO, "mobility and seemlessness" is the key to select any auto-configuration
mechanisms for HOSTs so that HOSTs don't have to prepare every differnt
mechanism to be used at home, office, hotspot, mobile enviroment and so on.

---Toshi

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 4:02 AM
Subject: RE: new revision ofcellular host draft

Hi, Toshi!

This is unfortunately an issue we could not give 'an exact answer' in our
draft. At least these possibilitites (I'm not commenting anything on their
pros and cons) exist at the moment:

- use a PPP based mechanism in PDP context activation (this kind of
mechanism is existing / in use for IPv4: RFC1877)

- manual configuration in the terminal, i.e. typing the DNS server address
manually (which is not very pleasant...)

- receiving the configuration information OTA, i.e. using SMS to configure
that information

BR,
-Juha W.-

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 05:43:22 -0400

Toshi,

Is DHCPv6 (configuration-only or "stateless" DHCPv6) a viable option for 
host configuration - are there now or will there be hosts with DHCPv6 for 
those home networks where the "O" bit is set?

- Ralph

---

From: "Toshi Yamasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:08:29 +0900

Ralph,

I'm confident that so-called stateful DHCPv6 is a very good choice for
ISP-to-Customer(CPE) prefix delegation and some cases of CPE-to-HOST
configuration where manegement is strictly required and 'O' bit should be
set.

IMO, so-called stateless DHCP is not bad also for CPE-to-HOST configuration,
but I still wonder how a host know which stateless mechanism to use when 'O'
bit is not set, for example, stateless DHCP or itojun-thaler method for DNS
cache discovery. Probably the most important differnce between those two
methods is that expensive memory space is required or not to store
configuration parameters and codes for discovery protocols.

--Toshi