[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MEXT] using MR-HA tunnel vs. combining BU // Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
Julien Laganier wrote:
Hello Ryuji,
On Thursday 11 December 2008, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
Actually, it's not only 3 round trip and is not optimization
problem.. This is a big issue of DHCP-PD.
Let me explain the issue clearly.
According to the NEMO-DHCP-PD spec, before receiving a prefix, a
mobile router must create a tunnel with its HA.
There would be no issue at all with the MR being configured as both a
DHCP client and relay, and the HA as a DHCP server: the DHCP
messages would be unicasted bewteen MR and HA without tunneling.
I somehow agree. Just to say that if the goal is to have DHCP unicasted
messages (avoid the DHCP Solicit) then it is sufficient for the MR to
know the address of the DHCP Server in advance (presumably the HA) and
send it a straight unicast DHCP Request. I doubt the necessity of
having a DHCP Relay co-located with the DHCP Client (although I agree it
is a suggestive illustration).
I thought that was what we agreed on and I'm seeing now the draft
still talks about multicasting into the tunnel...
I agree, I have the same surprise.
I think the tunneling story (Sec. 3.2) should be removed from the
draft, and the DHCP relay configuration mode made the mandatory
method for a NEMO MR to obtain a prefix dynamically, i.e. put a
couple of SHOULD words here and there in Sec. 3.3.
I agree to have unicast DHCP exchanges but not sure about the
co-location Relay/Client.
Alex
______________________________________________________________________
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