[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-02.txt



Thanks, George. We're collecting input and we'll publish one last revision before submitting it to the IESG.

- Ralph

On Mar 16, 2009, at 8:56 AM 3/16/09, George Tsirtsis wrote:

Ralph et.al.,

(I initially accidentally sent this to id-announce list and although I
copied mext list I am not sure it got there. Anyway I re-send it here
so that any discussion does not also CC the wrong lists)

Some comments on the draft, which I think is generally in good shape.

In Section 3 it says:
" The HA and MR exchange DHCPv6PD protocol messages through the tunnel
 connecting them.  The tunnel acts as the link labeled "DSL to
 subscriber premises" in figure 1 of the DHCPv6PD specification."

Assuming I am understanding the intention here, I think it is should
be made more clear that this MR-HA tunnel referred to here is the
result of a regular RFC3775 registration, as opposed to a tunnel say
set-up manually or otherwise. This then also affects section 3.5.
(Selecting an HA that provides DHCPv6PD), which currently seems to
imply that such selection is a simple matter of querying different
HAs. This is of course only the case if the MR is at its home link and
its querying HAs on-link. If the HA selection is performed over
foreign links i.e., over MR-HA tunnels, each query requires MIPv6
registration (including IKE exchange and BUs) ... which is a bit more
involved. I think thats fine but it needs to be stated in section 3.5


"3.3.2.  Transmission of DHCPv6 messages

 In this configuration, when the DHCPv6 client in the MR sends a
 message, it hands the message to the DHCPv6 relay agent in the MR.
 The way in which this handoff takes place is beyond the scope of this
 document. "

I think the above needs to be rephrased a bit. It is not clear what
"in this configuration" refers to. it is also a bit confusing to talk
about "handoff" here, since this has specific connotations in the
context of Mobile IPv6. Note that similar language is used in 3.3.3.

The same section continues:
" The relay agent encapsulates the message from the client
 according to RFC 3315 in a Relay-forward message and sends the
 resulting DHCPv6 message to the HA.  The relay agent sets the fields
 in the Relay-forward message as follows:

 msg-type       RELAY-FORW

 hop-count      1

 link-address   A non-link-local address from the MR interface to the
                tunnel between the HA and MR

 peer-address   A non-link-local address from the MR interface to the
                tunnel between the HA and MR

 options        MUST include a "Relay Message option" [RFC3315]; MAY
                include other options added by the relay agent."


Don't we have specific suggestions about what these link-address and
peer-address are supposed to be set to? e.g., HoA and HA address
correspondingly? or what else?

Thanks
George