Subject: Re: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6 deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:15:05 +0200

Chowdhury, Kuntal wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:01 AM
>> To: Alper Yegin
>> Cc: [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier'
>> Subject: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6 deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO
>>
>> Alper Yegin wrote:
>>>>> There are alternative approaches. Different DHCP servers (e.g.,
>>>>> ones collocated with the MAGs) can be used as long as they can be
>>>>>  dynamically-provisioned with the MN configuration parameters,
>>>>> for example, during network access authentication.
>>>> What's 'dynamically-provisioned'?  Is it a SDO-specific mechanism?
>>>> I don't know how a deployer would like to deploy a DHCP Server in
>>>> each MAG without mentioning how these pools of addresses are
>>>> dynamically provisioned.
>>> It's typically done via AAA. For example, sending Framed-IP-Address
>>> via RADIUS is for configuring that IP address via DHCP (or PPP).
>> Any deployed system today with wireless point-to-point links using
>> Framed-IP-Address via RADIUS gives that IP address to mobile with
> DHCP?
>>   I thought all are PPP.
>>
>> I've framed my mind to think that if wireless access link is
>> point-to-point then it's PPP, and if it's shared medium wifi then it's
>> DHCP; never otherwise.
>>
> [KC>] Nope...there are p2p wireless access links (3GPP, WiMAX) out there
> where PPP is not used.

Ok.  And on these links (3GPP, WiMAX) is DHCP used by the mobile? 
Because on GPRS and UMTS the mobile doesn't use DHCP.

Alex

> 
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netlmm mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 
> 
> "This email message and any attachments are confidential information of Starent Networks, Corp. The information transmitted may not be used to create or change any contractual obligations of Starent Networks, Corp.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail and its attachments by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email-masked] -- and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing their contents. Thank you."
> 

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

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:55:26 +0300

Alex,

In WiMAX, MS uses DHCP.

Alper 

> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:15 AM
> To: Chowdhury, Kuntal
> Cc: Alper Yegin; [email-masked]; Julien Laganier
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6 deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO
> 
> Chowdhury, Kuntal wrote:
> >
> > "This email message and any attachments are confidential information of
> Starent Networks, Corp. The information transmitted may not be used to
> create or change any contractual obligations of Starent Networks, Corp.
> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
> any action in reliance upon this e-mail and its attachments by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by
> replying to this message or by sending an email to
> [email-masked] -- and destroy all copies of this message
> and any attachments without reading or disclosing their contents. Thank
> you."
> >
> 
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:27:17 +0200

> In WiMAX, MS uses DHCP.

If so, I'm afraid it's the only one using DHCP over ptp links(?),
because GPRS/EDGE/UMTS/HSDPA/3G all use ptp links and don't use DHCP 
over them.

Or otherwise if WiMax MS uses DHCP then it is over ETHCS and not over
the ptp IPCS link, right?

Alex

> 
> Alper
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Thursday, September 20,
>> 2007 12:15 AM To: Chowdhury, Kuntal Cc: Alper Yegin;
>> [email-masked]; Julien Laganier Subject: Re: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6
>> deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO
>> 
>> Chowdhury, Kuntal wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu
>>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday,
>>>> September 19, 2007 10:01 AM To: Alper Yegin Cc:
>>>> [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier' Subject: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6
>>>> deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO
>>>> 
>>>> Alper Yegin wrote:
>>>>>>> There are alternative approaches. Different DHCP servers
>>>>>>> (e.g., ones collocated with the MAGs) can be used as long
>>>>>>> as they can be dynamically-provisioned with the MN
>>>>>>> configuration parameters, for example, during network
>>>>>>> access authentication.
>>>>>> What's 'dynamically-provisioned'?  Is it a SDO-specific
>>>>>> mechanism? I don't know how a deployer would like to deploy
>>>>>> a DHCP Server in each MAG without mentioning how these
>>>>>> pools of addresses are dynamically provisioned.
>>>>> It's typically done via AAA. For example, sending
>>>>> Framed-IP-Address via RADIUS is for configuring that IP
>>>>> address via DHCP (or PPP).
>>>> Any deployed system today with wireless point-to-point links
>>>> using Framed-IP-Address via RADIUS gives that IP address to
>>>> mobile with
>>> DHCP?
>>>> I thought all are PPP.
>>>> 
>>>> point-to-point then it's PPP, and if it's shared medium wifi
>>>> then it's DHCP; never otherwise.
>>>> 
>>> [KC>] Nope...there are p2p wireless access links (3GPP, WiMAX)
>>> out there where PPP is not used.
>>>>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
>>>> System. For more information please visit
>>>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>>>> _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing
>>>> list [email-masked] 
>> Starent Networks, Corp. The information transmitted may not be used
>> to create or change any contractual obligations of Starent
>> Networks, Corp. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
>> use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail and
>> its attachments by persons or entities other than the intended
>> recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> please notify the sender immediately -- by replying to this message
>> or by sending an email to [email-masked] -- and
>> destroy all copies of this message and any attachments without
>> reading or disclosing their contents. Thank you."
>> 
>>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
>> System. For more information please visit
>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:49:15 +0300

> because GPRS/EDGE/UMTS/HSDPA/3G all use ptp links and don't use DHCP

Sorry I lost track of why this matters, even if that were the case.

> the ptp IPCS link, right?

No. WiMAX architecture also supports DHCP over IPCS. 

Alper

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:08:30 +0200

Alper Yegin wrote:
>> because GPRS/EDGE/UMTS/HSDPA/3G all use ptp links and don't use
>> DHCP over them.
> 

Doing DHCP support for P-MIPv6 without knowing why we do it, and without
requirements - is senseless.

The original topic is whether to suggest that MAG should be a DHCPv6
Relay or not suggest so.  But does the MN need DHCPv6?  Other than WiMax
will any other MN run DHCPv6 over a ptp wireless access link?  Is this
PMIPv6 only for WiMax?

>> Or otherwise if WiMax MS uses DHCP then it is over ETHCS and not
>> over the ptp IPCS link, right?
> 

This is nonsense.

I keep asking for requirements: why do we need DHCP support for P-MIPv6?

And you keep telling me a certain SDO can support everything, this is
deceiving.  I know many other SDOs who'll also support everything.

Alex

---

From: "DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:13:39 +0200

Hi Alex,

I would add that also wireline access (a point-point access link by definition, e.g. DSL) supports DHCP as an alternative to PPP
Regarding 3GPP family, it can also be envisaged that they'll move to DHCP

What matters is that we can not assume PPP only in point-to-point access links (wireless or not)
The protocol used for address assignment and IP hootstrapping is a deployment choice
DHCP is (arguably) the best choice if you don't want to put this functionality in L2

Regards

federico

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Alper Yegin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : jeudi 20 septembre 2007 11:49
À : 'Alexandru Petrescu'
Cc : [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier'
Objet : RE: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6 deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO

Alper

> >>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, September 
> >>>> 19, 2007 10:01 AM To: Alper Yegin Cc:
> >>>>>>> (e.g., ones collocated with the MAGs) can be used as long as 
> >>>>>>> they can be dynamically-provisioned with the MN configuration 
> >>>>>>> parameters, for example, during network access authentication.
> >>>>>> mechanism? I don't know how a deployer would like to deploy a 
> >>>>>> DHCP Server in each MAG without mentioning how these pools of 
> >>>>>> addresses are dynamically provisioned.
> >>>>> Framed-IP-Address via RADIUS is for configuring that IP address 
> >>>>> via DHCP (or PPP).
> >>>> point-to-point then it's PPP, and if it's shared medium wifi then 
> >>>> it's DHCP; never otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>> [KC>] Nope...there are p2p wireless access links (3GPP, WiMAX) out 
> >>> there where PPP is not used.
> >> ___________________________________________________________________
> >> ___  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:28:46 +0300

Alex,

> requirements - is senseless.

WiFi uses it.
WiMAX uses it.
I've been told UMTS and LTE are also using DHCP.
3GPP2 evolution is dumping PPP, and will be using DHCP.
DSL evolution is doing the same.

> > No. WiMAX architecture also supports DHCP over IPCS.

What is nonsense? 

> I keep asking for requirements: why do we need DHCP support for P-MIPv6?

See above for where DHCP is/will be used.

> deceiving.  I know many other SDOs who'll also support everything.

What is the problem? What is your proposal? I'm lost..... 

Alper

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:40:44 +0200

DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> I would add that also wireline access (a point-point access link by 
> definition, e.g. DSL) supports DHCP as an alternative to PPP 

Ok, that's about DSL SDO, but that doesn't use PMIPv6, right?  Because 
that doesn't need mobility, houses don't move, right?

> What matters is that we can not assume PPP only in point-to-point 
> access links (wireless or not) The protocol used for address 
> assignment and IP hootstrapping is a deployment choice DHCP is 
> (arguably) the best choice if you don't want to put this 
> functionality in L2

In other discussions, people say that we can't assume PPP because 3GPP
doesn't use PPP and it uses a link-layer protocol instead.  Not because
it uses DHCP, it's because it uses a link-layer protocol.

Why do you think this address assignment functionality will move from 
the widely deployed L2 (be it ppp or other link-layer protocol)?  Why do 
you call it 'best' choice?

What mobile device can I buy today (wimax, 3g, cdma2000) that does
wireless ptp link and runs dhcp over it?  There isn't any AFAIK, all do
ptp protocol (PPP or 3G or other) to assign addresses.

That's why I'm thinking that speculating on the tendency to move to DHCP
over the wireless ptp access is probably early.

Alex

> 
> Regards
> 
> federico
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : Alper Yegin 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] Envoyé : jeudi 20 septembre 2007 11:49
>  À : 'Alexandru Petrescu' Cc : [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier' 
>>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Thursday, September
>>>>  20, 2007 12:15 AM To: Chowdhury, Kuntal Cc: Alper Yegin; 
>>>> [email-masked]; Julien Laganier Subject: Re: [netlmm] Re: 
>>>> DHCPv6 deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO
>>>> 
>>>> Chowdhury, Kuntal wrote:
>>>>>> [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier' Subject: [netlmm] Re: 
>>>>>> DHCPv6 deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alper Yegin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There are alternative approaches. Different DHCP 
>>>>>>>>> servers (e.g., ones collocated with the MAGs) can be 
>>>>>>>>> used as long as they can be dynamically-provisioned 
>>>>>>>>> with the MN configuration parameters, for example, 
>>>>>>>>> during network access authentication.
>>>>>>>>  mechanism? I don't know how a deployer would like to 
>>>>>>>> deploy a DHCP Server in each MAG without mentioning how
>>>>>>>>  these pools of addresses are dynamically provisioned.
>>>>>> Any deployed system today with wireless point-to-point 
>>>>>> links using Framed-IP-Address via RADIUS gives that IP 
>>>>>> address to mobile with
>>>>> DHCP?
>>>>>> I thought all are PPP.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've framed my mind to think that if wireless access link 
>>>>>> is point-to-point then it's PPP, and if it's shared medium 
>>>>>> wifi then it's DHCP; never otherwise.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> [KC>] Nope...there are p2p wireless access links (3GPP, 
>>>>> WiMAX) out there where PPP is not used.
>>>> Ok.  And on these links (3GPP, WiMAX) is DHCP used by the 
>>>> mobile? Because on GPRS and UMTS the mobile doesn't use DHCP.
>>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email 
>>>>>> Security System. For more information please visit 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ netlmm 
>>>>>> mailing list [email-masked] 
>>>> Starent Networks, Corp. The information transmitted may not be 
>>>> used to create or change any contractual obligations of Starent
>>>>  Networks, Corp. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 
>>>> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this 
>>>> e-mail and its attachments by persons or entities other than 
>>>> the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the 
>>>> intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by 
>>>> [email-masked] -- and destroy all copies of 
>>>> this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing 
>>>> their contents. Thank you."
>>>> 
>>>>  ___  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email 
>>>> Security System. For more information please visit 
>>>>  ___
> _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:45:37 +0200

Alper Yegin wrote:
> Alex,
> 
>>>> If so, I'm afraid it's the only one using DHCP over ptp
>>>> links(?), because GPRS/EDGE/UMTS/HSDPA/3G all use ptp links and
>>>> don't use DHCP over them.
>> Doing DHCP support for P-MIPv6 without knowing why we do it, and
>> without requirements - is senseless.
> 
> WiFi uses it.

WiFi hotspots  - yes.  That's PMIPv6 for wireless shared access.

> WiMAX uses it.

HAven't seen it, but you may have.

> I've been told UMTS and LTE are also using DHCP.

Well let me tell you UMTS doesn't.  Who told you UMTS uses DHCP on the
mobile?

> 3GPP2 evolution is dumping PPP, and will be using DHCP.

That's surprising... so you mean my next mobile phone will use DHCP?
BEcause the current 3G and UMTS phones I'm using don't run DHCP on the
wireless ptp access (they do on wifi).

Do you realize how much change in the infrastructure that assumes?

Isn't this another speculation just like the one of a few years ago
saying that 3G will run IPv6?

> DSL evolution is doing the same.

DSL is not relevant here because DSL doesn't need PMIPv6 because nothing
moves with DSL deployments.

To me all this list boils down to doing DHCPv6 in PMIPv6 only for
wireless shared access (and not for ptp links).

Alex

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:18:02 +0200

> without requirements - is senseless.

It is none of our business to decide whether it makes sense or not for a 
MN in a PMIPv6 domain to use DHCP. 

We are specifying the PMIPv6 protocol.

We are not specifying a MN software stack or a system architecture.

What is senseless IMHO is the way that *thread* went.

> Relay or not suggest so. 

The original topic was whether a PMIPv6 topic constrains DHCPv6 
deployments, and whether that should be documented.

> But does the MN need DHCPv6?  

That is none of our business.

> Other than WiMax will any other MN run DHCPv6 over a ptp wireless
> access link?

It is irrelevant to this forum.
 
> Is this PMIPv6 only for WiMax?

Where did you get that from?! OTOH, your line of arguments seems to 
imply that DCHP is not needed for PMIPv6, thus that PMIPv6 is only for 
non-DHCP systems.

This discussion is irrelevant to this forum, we should stop it.

> > No. WiMAX architecture also supports DHCP over IPCS.

Then go to the WiMAX forum and tell them. It's none of our business to 
judge what WiMAX decided. 

I am also concerned that such judgment can be seen as lack of respect 
for WiMAX.

> I keep asking for requirements: why do we need DHCP support for

Again, it is not to NETLMM to decide how a MN will configure its 
addresses.

DHCP is a standard track IETF specification, as such we in this working 
group should ensure that we do nothing that would prevent use of that 
standard track IETF specification.  

> deceiving.  I know many other SDOs who'll also support everything.

Sigh, SDOs are none of our business.

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:19:30 +0200

On Thursday 20 September 2007, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Ok, that's about DSL SDO, but that doesn't use PMIPv6, right? 
> Because that doesn't need mobility, houses don't move, right?
>
> In other discussions, people say that we can't assume PPP because
> 3GPP doesn't use PPP and it uses a link-layer protocol instead.  Not
> because it uses DHCP, it's because it uses a link-layer protocol.

3GPP will use DHCP, and that's not our business.

As per our charter, the NETLMM protocol should be independent of 
specific link layers.

> the widely deployed L2 (be it ppp or other link-layer protocol)?  Why
> do you call it 'best' choice?

That is out-of-scope for this list.

> wireless ptp link and runs dhcp over it?  There isn't any AFAIK, all
> do ptp protocol (PPP or 3G or other) to assign addresses.

That is out-of-scope for this list.

> That's why I'm thinking that speculating on the tendency to move to
> DHCP over the wireless ptp access is probably early.

That is out-of-scope for this list.

--julien

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:23:28 +0200

Alper Yegin wrote:
[...]
>> And you keep telling me a certain SDO can support everything, this
>> is deceiving.  I know many other SDOs who'll also support
>> everything.
> 

The problem is that you guys talk DHCP for PMIPv6 because you think a 
certain SDO might require it in the future.  The problem is also that 
you guys don't rely on prototyping or deployment experience when you 
request/reject DHCP presence; you only rely your claims on what other 
SDOs want or might want.

The proposal is to talk a little more implementation and/or prototyping
and see from these experiences how DHCP can fit in.  Is there a 
prototyping or full deployment experience with a MS using DHCP over a 
ptp wireless access link?  (not DSL, not wifi hotspot).

Because if there isn't, then I don't think we can mandate DHCP in any 
way in PMIPv6.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:34:00 +0200

> 3GPP will use DHCP, and that's not our business.

Because you think 3GPP will no longer use PDP-Context setup?  What 
happens to all mobiles who set up PDP-contexts?

> As per our charter, the NETLMM protocol should be independent of 

I think that's good.  But I also think the current P-MIPv6 draft v05 
says this:
> 6.3.  Supported Access Link Types
> 
>    This specification supports only point-to-point access link types and
>    thus it assumes that the mobile node and the mobile access gateway
>    are the only two nodes on the access link.

So we have two problems here: (1) P-MIPv6 is not agreeing with the 
Charter and (2) absent experience of DHCP over a MS's wireless ptp link 
we can't request DHCP Relay on the MAG, it's too far-fetched, too much 
speculation IMHO.

> That is out-of-scope for this list.

Rather ok for all three, let's focus on how can we require DHCP in the 
PMIPv6 protocol.

Alex

---

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:09:51 -0400

> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:15 PM
> To: Chowdhury, Kuntal
mechanism?
> >>> It's typically done via AAA. For example, sending
Framed-IP-Address
> >> point-to-point then it's PPP, and if it's shared medium wifi then
it's
> > [KC>] Nope...there are p2p wireless access links (3GPP, WiMAX) out
there
> Because on GPRS and UMTS the mobile doesn't use DHCP.
[KC>] 

3GPP: not in Rel7. In Rel8, DHCP may be used. 

WiMAX: yes for IPv4. For IPv6, SLAAC is used to configure the IPv6
global address.

> >> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
System.

---

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:29:16 -0400

> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:09 AM
> To: Alper Yegin
> Cc: Chowdhury, Kuntal; [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier'
without
> requirements - is senseless.
[KC>] I agree.

> will any other MN run DHCPv6 over a ptp wireless access link?  Is this
[KC>] IPv6 SLAAC is the predominant address config mechanism used over
p2p wireless links. There are some hand wavy text in WiMAX NWG spec and
the 16ng I-D about stateful address config. But, nothing is clearly
defined, IMHO.

> deceiving.  I know many other SDOs who'll also support everything.
[KC>] use of DHCPv6 for address config over foo_bar wireless links is
not clearly defined/used as per my understanding. So, there is no slid
use case for such a thing.

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:42:34 +0200

On Thursday 20 September 2007, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> [...] let's focus on how can we require DHCP in the PMIPv6 protocol.

?!

Nobody wants to "require DHCP in the PMIPv6 protocol", whatever that 
means.

--julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:43:49 +0200

Alex:

I write my messages with great care, and I try to be as articulate as I 
can. 

You seem to think that is a problem "we guys" (whoever that 
includes) "talk DHCP", "don't rely on prototyping or deployment 
experience", etc. I don't want to argue with you about what I do.

Let me just suggest that the main problem could be that *you* do not 
read carefully enough messages -- for example you are saying below "I 
don't think we can mandate DHCP in any way in PMIPv6". This is 
irrelevant since nobody ever said that DHCP should be *mandated*.

Hence I think this discussion it unproductive at best and I will not 
continue it.

--julien

problem On Thursday 20 September 2007, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> The proposal is to talk a little more implementation and/or
> prototyping and see from these experiences how DHCP can fit in.  Is
> there a prototyping or full deployment experience with a MS using
> DHCP over a ptp wireless access link?  (not DSL, not wifi hotspot).
>
> >> __________________________________________________________________
> >>____ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
> _____________________________________________________________________
>_ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:53:29 +0200

> Nobody wants to "require DHCP in the PMIPv6 protocol", whatever that 

Sorry, but I would like to see PMIPv6 interact ok with DHCP, in 
implementation.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:57:03 +0200

> Hence I think this discussion it unproductive at best and I will not 

Sorry Julien, I may not read carefully all messages - my fault.

Continuing to debate on whether we should have DHCP working ok with 
PMIPv6 is a good thing IMHO.

I think DHCP over ptp links doesn't make much sense, I think you don't 
either.  If you did you could have said at least that you've seen it.

Sorry if any of my phrases look disrespectful about what you do.

Alex

>>>> ____
>> _

---

From: "DE JUAN HUARTE FEDERICO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:19:07 +0200

Hi Alex,

nobody asked to mandate DHCP
I heard a request to consider potential constraints to be taken into account when using DHCP in the context of PMIP
To be honest, I have not really understood why such constraints would be PMIP specific, but if they were it would be fair to add them

You seem to consider PPP as a MUST for point-to-point links. More specifically for wireless point-to-point links
We can agree to disagree and move on as this will not make a difference in the specification

What the specification concerns, I think that it should be enough to just mention that the serving MAG can learn the IP@ assigned to the MN via several mechanisms which are out of scope

Regards

federico

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : jeudi 20 septembre 2007 14:23
À : Alper Yegin
Cc : [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier'
Objet : Re: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6 deployment in PMIPv6 domain and SDO

Alper Yegin wrote:
[...]
> What is the problem? What is your proposal? I'm lost.....

The problem is that you guys talk DHCP for PMIPv6 because you think a certain SDO might require it in the future.  The problem is also that you guys don't rely on prototyping or deployment experience when you request/reject DHCP presence; you only rely your claims on what other SDOs want or might want.

The proposal is to talk a little more implementation and/or prototyping and see from these experiences how DHCP can fit in.  Is there a prototyping or full deployment experience with a MS using DHCP over a ptp wireless access link?  (not DSL, not wifi hotspot).

Because if there isn't, then I don't think we can mandate DHCP in any way in PMIPv6.

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: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:33:27 +0200

> nobody asked to mandate DHCP

Right... sorry if any confusion.  I'm looking at DHCPv6 and PMIPv6.

> I heard a request to consider potential constraints to be taken into
>  account when using DHCP in the context of PMIP

What does this mean?  What's that request?  Where did you hear it?

> To be honest, I have not really understood why such constraints would
>  be PMIP specific, but if they were it would be fair to add them

I think requirements for PMIP are that the mobile doesn't change its
address upon handoverer.  Only a subset of DHCP features can make that
possible.

I think there's no other mobility WG that has such a requirement, that's
why it makes it specific to PMIP.

> You seem to consider PPP as a MUST for point-to-point links. More 
> specifically for wireless point-to-point links We can agree to 
> disagree and move on as this will not make a difference in the 
> specification

That was another discussion I recently had on the 16ng WG.  In this
netlmm discussion I'm not saying PPP is a MUST for ptp links: instead of
PPP one could use PDP-Context setup in 3G.

In this netlmm discussion I'm saying that DHCP is not used on deployed
ptp links.  And if you disagree with this please point me to a
prototype/implementation/demo that shows DHCP over a wireless ptp link
for a mobile handset.

Let's clarify this.

> What the specification concerns, I think that it should be enough to 
> just mention that the serving MAG can learn the IP@ assigned to the 
> MN via several mechanisms which are out of scope

No, I think this is too easy.  It leaves open the door to
interpretations like the previous that means that DHCP is on wireless
ptp access links for mobile handsets - it's not.

In some scenarios the serving MAG doesn't even learn the IP address
assigned to the MN.

I don't even know why the MAG should learn the IP address of the mobile
at all, not even in the SLAAC case.  Maybe you meant the prefix?  Sorry,
I don't know what you meant, trying to find out, not discarding.

Alex

> 
> Regards
> 
> federico
> 
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : Alexandru Petrescu 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] Envoyé : jeudi 20 septembre 
> 2007 14:23 À : Alper Yegin Cc : [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier' 
> Alper Yegin wrote: [...]
>>> And you keep telling me a certain SDO can support everything, 
>>> this is deceiving.  I know many other SDOs who'll also support 
>>> everything.
>  certain SDO might require it in the future.  The problem is also 
> that you guys don't rely on prototyping or deployment experience when
>  you request/reject DHCP presence; you only rely your claims on what
>  other SDOs want or might want.
>

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:07:15 +0300

Alex,

> request/reject DHCP presence; you only rely your claims on what other

It is just unfortunate that you are making random assumptions about people,
and trying to derive technical conclusions out of it. I don't think anyone
appreciates that. 

> ptp wireless access link?  (not DSL, not wifi hotspot).

Commercial WiBro deployment in Korea.

Do you have any commercial deployment, or even theoretical technical point
that suggests DHCP may have issues running over ptp wireless links? If not,
what's more to say?!?

Let both DHCP and SLAAC be acknowledged as possible ways to configure hosts
in PMIP6 deployments. Some people (including myself) may have preference
towards one or the other. But we'll take that up in other forums, not in
IETF.

> HAven't seen it, but you may have.

Just read the WiMAX Forum NWG Release 1.0 Stage 3 spec.

> Well let me tell you UMTS doesn't.  Who told you UMTS uses DHCP on the

Read TS 23.401 v1.2.1 and TS 23.060 v7.3.0.

> That's surprising... so you mean my next mobile phone will use DHCP?

I cannot tell you what "your next mobile" will do. I'm telling you what
other SDOs are doing. If this means nothing to you, I cannot do much about
it.

> Do you realize how much change in the infrastructure that assumes?

I'm not going to discuss this here. This goes all the way to business
discussions. Nothing to do with IETF NETLMM WG.

> saying that 3G will run IPv6?

Same as my previous response.

> moves with DSL deployments.

There are various wireless and DSL interworking scenarios. So don't discount
DSL relevance.

> wireless shared access (and not for ptp links).

Just wrong.

Alper

> Alex
...

Alper

> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:46 PM
> To: Alper Yegin
> Cc: 'Chowdhury, Kuntal'; [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier'

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:29:32 +0200

Alper Yegin wrote:
[...]
> Commercial WiBro deployment in Korea.

Does the Commercial WiBro deployment in Korea use DHCP over the wibro
wireless ptp access link?

What is the protocol used to put the interface up?  Does that protocol
obtain/negotiate addresses and default route and DNS server address?  Or
only some?  Which of those 3 are obtained by DHCP?

Please give details (you do realize Korea systems aren't within 
everyone's reach.)

> Do you have any commercial deployment, or even theoretical technical 
> point that suggests DHCP may have issues running over ptp wireless 
> links? If not, what's more to say?!?

Well, here is the reasoning.

I'll use 'GPRS' to stand for EDGE, UMTS and HSDPA links, I've tried them
all.

Several operators giving GPRS in EU and in the US offer the possibility
to the mobile to dial up using ppp (I can name about 5 such operators).
  When that ppp puts the interface up the IPv4 address is already
negotiated by LCP.  There is no point to run DHCP over the ppp0
interface because it already has an address, a default route and the DNS
server's address.

I think it _is_ possible to tell ppp to not negotiate the IPv4 addresses
and then run DHCP over the ppp0 interface.  However, the networks I have
tried have the AAA 'backend' like Radius plugged into PPP's LCP, not
into DHCP.  I think it _is_ possible to plug Radius on the DHCP, but at
that point there is no need for DHCP Relay on MAG, because MAG would do 
DHCP Server.

DHCP over ppp0 is probably possible, but why would one do it?  What are
the advantages over letting LCP (or PDP-Context setup) negotiate these
addresses?

> Let both DHCP and SLAAC be acknowledged as possible ways to configure
>  hosts in PMIP6 deployments.

I agree with this.

But I really don't see why would anybody put a DHCP Relay on the MAG
running PMIPv6, because PMIPv6 only cares about ptp links and I haven't
seen DHCP run on commercial ptp deployments on mobiles.  You have cited
one above (WiBro), could you please clarify it above thanks?

> Some people (including myself) may have preference towards one or the
>  other. But we'll take that up in other forums, not in IETF.

Outside forums let's talk here practical matters and deployment.

Alex

>> Well let me tell you UMTS doesn't.  Who told you UMTS uses DHCP on 
>> the mobile?
> 
> I cannot tell you what "your next mobile" will do. I'm telling you 
> what other SDOs are doing. If this means nothing to you, I cannot do 
> much about it.
> 
>> BEcause the current 3G and UMTS phones I'm using don't run DHCP on 
>> the wireless ptp access (they do on wifi).
>> 
>> DSL is not relevant here because DSL doesn't need PMIPv6 because 
>> nothing moves with DSL deployments.
> 
> There are various wireless and DSL interworking scenarios. So don't 
> discount DSL relevance.
> 
>>  2007 1:46 PM To: Alper Yegin Cc: 'Chowdhury, Kuntal'; 
>> [email-masked]; 'Julien Laganier' Subject: Re: [netlmm] Re: DHCPv6
>>>>>> links(?), because GPRS/EDGE/UMTS/HSDPA/3G all use ptp links
>>>>>>  and don't use DHCP over them.
>>>> Doing DHCP support for P-MIPv6 without knowing why we do it, 
>>>> and without requirements - is senseless.
>>> WiFi uses it.
>> Well let me tell you UMTS doesn't.  Who told you UMTS uses DHCP on 
>> the mobile?
>> 
>> That's surprising... so you mean my next mobile phone will use 
>> DHCP? BEcause the current 3G and UMTS phones I'm using don't run 
>> DHCP on the wireless ptp access (they do on wifi).
>> 
>> DSL is not relevant here because DSL doesn't need PMIPv6 because 
>> nothing moves with DSL deployments.
>>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:43:29 +0200

Alper Yegin wrote:
[...]
> Read TS 23.401 v1.2.1 and TS 23.060 v7.3.0.

After you provide some pointers to it, of course, because I can't click
on the above.

(I think that not _all_ that these TS's say is required to be
  implemented and deployers choose some stuff before deploying).

> what other SDOs are doing. If this means nothing to you, I cannot do

As I said previously, SDOs do many things on paper.

>  discussions. Nothing to do with IETF NETLMM WG.

I don't understand.  NETLMM is mostly about infrastructure, do you
assume there is no infrastructure deployed?

> There are various wireless and DSL interworking scenarios. So don't

That's new to me.  Do you mean ADSL forum may be interested in PMIPv6
and NETLMM WG?   We've always discussed here PMIPv6 for mobiles, like
handheld talking to basestation+infrastructure, not networks deployed in
houses.

>> wireless shared access (and not for ptp links).

Let's see.

Alex