Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
On 2008/12/11, at 17:36, Romain KUNTZ wrote:Hi Ryuji, On 2008/12/11, at 17:26, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:For this purpose, the mobile router needs to act as a RFC3775 compliant mobile host before starting DHCP-PD. Why? If there isno prefix, the mobile router cannot sends a NEMO-BU (i.e. R-flag set) to its Home Agent. If there is no valid prefix for the mobile router, HA returns BA with "Invalid Prefix" status value which is treated as the fatal error in RFC3963.I'd say the MR still sends a BU with the R-flag set and without the MNP option, which will be considered as registration in Implicit mode by the HA.Implicit mode requires some mapping between a mobile network prefix and a mobile router.
For clarification: yes the Implicit mode requires a mapping between the Mobile Network Prefix and the Home Address of the Mobile Router. This mapping exists already in the routing table of (at least) the HA, otherwise HA can't reach the MR when MR at home. It is not a mapping that should be found or created, it exists already. Alex
Implicit: In this mode, the Mobile Router does not include a Mobile Network Prefix Option in the Binding Update. The Home Agent can use any mechanism (not defined in this document) to determine the Mobile Network Prefix(es) owned by the Mobile Router and to set up forwarding for the Mobile Network. One example would be manual configuration at the Home Agent mapping the Mobile Router's Home Address to the information required for setting up forwarding for the Mobile Network. In RFC3963, we didn't consider a MR who doesn't have any mobile network prefix sends BU with R-flag set. In implicit mode, if there is no prefix for the MR, HA will reject the BU. regards, ryujiCheers, romainOn 2008/12/11, at 10:50, Julien Laganier wrote:We had this discussion for a long time abd it has concluded some time ago already: WG consensus is to use DHCP PD. (w/o questioning the value of optimizing RTTs for a procedure which isn't in a critical path, e.g., handover) --julien On Thursday 11 December 2008, Yungui Wang wrote:Hello Here is one comment about using MR-HA tunnel for DHCP-PD. In this draft, the MR registration processing needs 3 round trip between MR and HA. i. BU to HA; (getting and bindingMR_HoA) ii. DHCPv6 message over MR-HA tunnel. (getting MNP) iii. BU to HA; (binding MNP) While, if PD is combined withinBU, it is only 1 round trip. From implementation of viewpoint, the later seems well done prior of the former. Maybe I have lost something, can anyone tell me the story why we gave up the latter in the new version? Thanks. B.R. Yungui ----- Original Message ----- From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext ; Julien Laganier ; Ralph Droms Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:02 PM Subject: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt Hi, We now start the WGLC for:DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txthttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt Please send comments about the draft till the November 19. Regards, Julien and marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext-- --julien[ New email address: julien.laganier.IETF at googlemail.com ] _______________________________________________ MEXT mailinglist MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext