[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt

2008-03-09 06:23:18

Sri Gundavelli wrote:
Hi Elwyn,

Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reviewing the updated
draft. We will address the two remaining issues. Please
see inline.

No problem.. I am stuck in a hotel in Toronto, nit getting to IETF. :-(((

Snipped the first issue as that should be fine.

Outstanding query: s6.1, bullet 2:  This bullet refers to 
'*the* interface 
identifier' and suggests that it might be retrieved from a 
Router Solicitation. 
  My original point was that the IID for IPv6 addresses is 
not necessarily 
common between the addresses configured on an interface.  My 
comment was a 
little glib and the authors glossed over the point in their 
reply.  I think this 
bullet may require clarification to indicate which of the 
IIDs would be implied 
here.  Particularly if SEND is in use, the IID used for the 
link local address 
(that would typically be found in the solicitation) will a.s. 
differ from the 
IID used with the address assigned out of the prefix 
allocated by Proxy MIP.  My 
original point was to ask the authors to clarify whether 
ProxyMIP actually cares 
which IID is used and, accordingly, state either that 'it 
doesn't matter' or 
specifically which IID should be transmitted.


This is the interface identifier (layer-2) and not the L3 identifier. 
This is covered in the terminology section, "Mobile Node Interface
Identifier (MN-Interface-Identifier)". 

The need for the L2 interface identifier (such as MAC address) is
to predictably identify the interface of a mobile node. The Access
Technology Type in combination with the interface identifier is
used as the index field in the BCE. 

Looks like this is not implied. We can point to the
"MN-Interface-Identifier"  term and that should probably make it
OK.. I think some clarification is required to make sure that you always 
get the same IID.  As specified I didn't grok that it had to be the same 
one from wherever the node roams to.

I think a few extra words will sort that out and then we are done.

Thanks again, for the review. Hopefully this addresses all the issues
raised by the Gen-art review.

Best Regards


IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>