Subject: [netlmm] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-08 (fwd)

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:56:59 -0800 (PST)

This version addresses the post last call comments.

Fixed idnits issues, except 2 incorrect warnings. RFC Ed will take care 
of it. Clarifies on the globally unique address requirement, rejection
of the PBU if multiple HoA options are present or the prefix flag is
set, relaxes the check on the MAG for performing address integrity checks,
when DHCP server is colocated with LMA .. few other minor comments.

Thanks
Sri

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:47:16 -0800 (PST)
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: New Version Notification for
     draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-08

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-08.txt has been successfuly submitted by Sri Gundavelli and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support
Revision:	 08
Title:		 IPv4 Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
Creation_date:	 2009-01-18
WG ID:		 netlmm
Number_of_pages: 48

Abstract:
This document specifies extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for
adding IPv4 protocol support.  The scope of IPv4 protocol support is
two-fold: 1) enable IPv4 home address mobility support to the mobile
node. 2) allowing the mobility entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6
domain to exchange signaling messages over an IPv4 transport network.

The IETF Secretariat.

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Joel Hortelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:31:53 +0000

Hi again;

Another question related to Remote Id suboption when using the DHCP
relay; is this option intended to be parsed by the server and used as
'requested address' in or is it supposed to be used as an opaque value
matching a configuration setup? 

Merely asking since the RFC for the Relay agent information option does
specify that the remote id not be interpreted, but only used in a string
comparison setup way. But doing it that way would require a DHCP rule
per address, while doing it in the 'requested address' approach would
match the rest of text in the draft better?

Regards,
/J.

---

From: Joel Hortelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:14:33 +0000

Yet another question;

When you co-locate the DHCP server with the MAG; does there exist any
mechanism, or is there any mechanism under development, that would allow
DHCP configuration (options and such) to be provided to the MAG by the
LMA, or must each MAG be configured with said configuration, or is this
beyond the scope of this draft?

Regards,
/J.

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:31:29 -0800 (PST)

The option configuration on the co-located DHCP server is
out-of band and is out of scope for this doc.

Sri