Hi Marco, On 10/15/09 11:27 AM, "ext Marco Liebsch" <marco.liebsch at nw.neclab.eu> wrote: > Hi Raj, > > looks like you propose to remove the complete IPv4 section. The comment > to address IPv4 in the PS has been brought up during SF meeting and > there was support for that comment as far as we understood. That was the > reason to include such section in the individual draft. For the WG draft, we > shortened this section according to the feedback we received in Stockholm > and our understanding how this fits into the revised PS structure. Now you > propose to remove IPv4 entirely. That was my originla suggestion in order to keep it simple. However Rajeev said that maybe it is okay to still allow localized routing for the assigned IPv4 HoA for the MN. But I think we should definitely not include the part about MAGs being assigned private IPv4 addresses and the mechanisms to deal with NATs etc. > > I (personally) still think that the PS can refer to a potential problem > if it's > valid and I see this independent of whether or not the solution will address > all these problems. Well, the PS is going to act as the reference for the solution I-D and hence it is better to keep the PS scope limited to what we think is reasonable. > If the concern is that a particular issue described > in the > PS needs more time for discussion and that this may delay starting with the > solution work, well, I don't see this problem as work on solution can start > in parallel. We could always have a separate I-D to discuss the aspects which do not have consensus at the moment as well, right? > > I really don't persist in keeping the related text and if there is a > good reason to > remove some text or the complete IPv4 section, I am ok. But I think there > are more opinions needed. Sure. WG members should express opinion and feeback. We will go with whatever the WG believes is in the best interest. From a chair perspective, I believe we should not chew off more than necessary; Rather focus on getting something done quickly that can be implemented and used. -Raj > > marco > > > Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com schrieb: >> Hello, >> >> Regarding the scope of localized routing for PMIP6, I believe the >> current PS I-D has some issues w.r.t the following: >> >> 1. Localized routing for IPv4 HoA (Sec 3.3.1) >> I do not believe we should work on supporting LR for IPv4 HoA at this >> time. Given the possibility of multiple MNs with the same IPv4 HoA >> (RFC1918 addresses) in a PMIP6 domain, we will be bogged down on this >> capability. Lets just worry about LR for only the IPv6 >> prefix/address. >> >> 2. Transport network between the MAGs (Sec 3.3.2) >> Rather than making assumptions about the capability of MAGs in a PMIP6 >> domain, and defining negotiation mechanisms, we can make an assumption >> that MAGs support IPv6 transport. Keeping the scope constrained will >> ensure we get something done here. >> >> So I would recommend (with chair hat on) that we delete secs 3.3, >> 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. >> >> -Chairs >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >> >
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.