Subject: Re: [nemo] Prefix Delegation documents

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT)

I agree with Alex. DHAAD extension proposed in NEMO DHCP PD draft is I think a stretch and may probably be not needed.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2007 4:17:41 AM
Subject: Re: [nemo] Prefix Delegation documents

Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm wondering what is the current status of the Prefix Delegation 
> documents for NEMO: one seems to be still active and is referenced by
>  the NEMO charter page (draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation) but the 
> other WG document (draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd) does not appear 
> anymore. Is it still supported by the WG?

I would like to second the question, thanks for the replies.

The work is mentioned in MEXT WG Charter "(B.3) Finish working group
documents that are currently in process, and submit for RFC. This
includes prefix delegation protocol mechanism for network mobility, and
a MIB for NEMO Basic Support."

(Personally, I've made up my mind.  If until now I supported both, I
think only the one doing DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation makes sense.

The issue with the one doing prefix allocation with BU/BAck is that a
similar thing is proposed in NETLMM WG: put ::/0 in PBU and receive
prefix in PBAck.

These two things (MNP in BAck and HNP in PBAck) are practically the same
thing; but done with different encodings, with different assumptions and
  different technologies - an incoherency.

DHCPv6-PD can do that and much more, more advanced architectures are
supported, lifetimes, advanced configuration, and so on.  BEsides, there
are some implementations opensource.)

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:34:05 +0200

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> I agree with Alex. DHAAD extension proposed in NEMO DHCP PD draft is I 
> think a stretch and may probably be not needed.

Err?  Sorry, I'm happy you agree with me, but I think the NEMO DHCP PD 
draft doesn't propose DHAAD extensions...(?)

draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation-02.txt proposes exensions to PBU/PBAck 
to request and receive a prefix.

The NEMODHCP PD draft that I've seen last time (Ralph+Pascal) and whose 
draft name I can't find doesn't propose DHAAD extensions either, it just 
pictures the roles of MR and of HA as Requestor and Delegator, (IIRC 
terminology), normal DHCP PD roles.  It didn't define new message 
formats/flags, IIRC.

Alex

---

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 23:58:12 +0200

Hi Alex,

On 2007/10/01, at 23:34, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> I agree with Alex. DHAAD extension proposed in NEMO DHCP PD draft  
>> is I think a stretch and may probably be not needed.
>
> Err?  Sorry, I'm happy you agree with me, but I think the NEMO DHCP  
> PD draft doesn't propose DHAAD extensions...(?)

draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-02 adds a new D flag to DHAAD in section 3.5.
And I agree with Behcet that this may not be useful, as the MIP6  
bootstrapping work does not rely on DHAAD to assign HA addresses. It  
could be interesting to integrate this work better in the MIP6  
bootstrapping effort.

Romain