Subject: RE: [nemo] New draft on prefix delegation

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:00:20 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: mercredi 20 octobre 2004 12:36
> To: T.J.Kniveton
> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); IETF NEMO WG
> Subject: Re: [nemo] New draft on prefix delegation
> 
> T.J.Kniveton wrote:
> > The reason why we wrote this draft are:
> >
> > 1) We want a way for the MR to signal to the HA that it wants either
> > (a) a transient prefix to be used for the lifetime of its binding,
> > similar to how DHCP would hand out an address, or (b) for a
> > persistent prefix to be provisioned at the HA, which the MR can then
> > use for subsequent bindings as well.
> 
> TJ, a "transient" concept goes against the "continuity" concept of
> Mobile IPv6.  An MR would not be interested in "transient" prefixes
> because that gives "transient" Home Addresses to LFN, meaning
> interrupting communications when changing the prefix.  Or otherwise,
did
> you also think about binding the "transient" prefix to the
"persistent"
> prefix? (Care-of Prefix and Home Prefix).

Right: one application of the transient prefix is the local mobility
management as detailed in  draft-droms-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-01.txt 

> 
> > 2) We thought that doing a NEMO-based flow might save on messages,
> > and might also give more information and status codes that wouldn't
> > be relevant for DHCP.
> 
> This may be true.  DHCP exchange is usually 4 message exchange,
BU/BAck
> is only 2.  DHCP provides discovery, while BU/BAck no.  I doubt
there's
> no room for extension in DHCP messages though, to support
MNP-delegation
> related parameters.
> 
> > 3) DHCPv6 could be used, but might not be present or implemented in
> > all deployments, so this would offer a way to do allocation and
> > delegation without necessitating DHCP.
> 
> This may be true, but the modularity concepts suggest to use a simple
> tool for such task: Mobile IPv6 for continuity, DHCP for allocation,
etc.

Allocation might be done by a provisioning system as opposed to a DHCP
server.

Pascal

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:06:10 +0200

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Allocation might be done by a provisioning system as opposed to a 
> DHCP server.

Sorry for being completely ignorant about "provisioning system", but
what is it more exactly?  I've searched the RFC's and I found
"provisioning" in RFC3730 (EPP: Extensible Provisioning Protocol).
Internet Drafts have CAPWAP for Provisioning of Wireless Access Points.
  Which of those two? (actually none claims to be an alternative to DHCP).

Or do you refer to a completely independent MR having no Home and asking
for a prefix directly from Registrars?  Remark this could be automated
as well...

Alex