Re: Adoption of draft-yokota-mipshop-pfmipv6 asaWG document
Koodli, Rajeev <rkoodli <at> starentnetworks.com>
2008-09-04 17:35:31 GMT
Even though we could argue that ICMP is sufficient, I think there is a
case for MH here. As Yokota-san pointed out, PMIP deployments, where
this protocol is expected to be used, do use MH and having the same
format for PFMIP messages makes sense. So, I would say we need to
support MH type based on the anticipated deployment considerations. What
this means is getting Type definitions, the message format and
processing is exactly the same as in RFC 5268.
See more below..
> We are not talking about a regular router here. It is a PMIPv6 MAG
> is processing these HI and HACK messages.
[RKo:>] Nevertheless, deployments could argue that they should not be
forced to make this choice: They are okay if we define both ICMP and MH.
Looks like you are arguing that we have to have only one type. More on
> Hmm.. We have used ICMPv6 messages quite a bit for mobility protocols
> the IETF. For example, DHAAD messages, Mobile Prefix
> solicitations/Advertisements for MIPv6, HI and HACK in FMIPv6 [RFC
> 5268], Context Transfer protocol messages [RFC 4067], etc..
[RKo:>] Right. But we don't have any deployment experience say in an
operator network, do we? (Granted PMIP is not yet deployed, but the