Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEM

On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
>
> It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network Prefix to
> the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
>
> However, here are a couple of missing points.
>
> One missing point is about how will the Mobile Router configure its
> default route on the home link?  I thought Prefix Delegation would bring
> DHCP in the picture and would allow MR to synthesize a default route
> even though RAs are absent.  But I now realize that a DHCPv6-PD
> implementation (and std?) does not allow a router (MR) to synthesize its
> default route (neither RA does, nor DHCPv6-nonPD does).
=> Am not sure I understand from your comment where the problem really lies. 
If neither RA does the job nor DHCPv6 then why do you think this problem (if it 
is really a problem) should be adressed in this particular draft and not in a 
more
general way?


Wassim H.


> Another missing point is that this spec talks _only_ one specific case
> where DHCPv6-PD is used _without_ a real Relay: the MR is Client and
> Relay and the HA is the Server DR.  My deployment is different: the MR 
> is not the Relay, just Client; and the Server DR is not HA.  For this to 
> work there are some modifications needed on the DHCPv6 Relay 
> implementation and std (manage the the allocated prefix in the Relay's 
> routing table).
>
> I believe this model of deploying DHCPv6-PD (HA is not Server, Client is
> not Relay) is inline with existing DHCPv4 deployments and that gives
> an easy v6 migration path.
>
> There are several ways of addressing these two missing points.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Le 07/09/2010 17:36, The IESG a écrit :
> > The IESG has received a request from the Mobility EXTensions for
> > IPv6 WG (mext) to consider the following document:
> >
> > - 'DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO '
> > <draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt>  as a Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to
> > the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2010-09-21. Exceptionally,
> > comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, 
> > please
> > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt
> >
> >
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17328&rfc_flag=0
> No IPR declarations were found that appear related to this I-D.
> > _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce
> > mailing list IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Regards,

Wassim H.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf