Forgot to include a website link in the previous email. Now I included it. Regards,
Tao Sun On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Tao Sun <hisun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > > Thanks for the discussion. As one of the author of the draft, I would like > to share our view on DHCPv6 used case in three aspects. > > *Network management and configuration. > > 1. It is efficient for the network to configure this in a central DHCPv6 > server to do unified routing policy configuration. The gateways (e.g., GGSN > in cellular network) only need to perform DHCPv6 relay. > > 2. The Option Code in the DHCPv6 Request message can be used as an > indication that the host is MIF capable so that the network need not to do > such configuration to host without MIF feature > > > > **Cellular network > > 1. In cellular network, DHCPv6 is used for IPv6 parameter > configuration and RA is used for SLAAC of handset. This is start from 3GPP > release 8 (or earlier). > > 2. The network gateway in cellular network (e.g., GGSN) can > naturally support DHCPv6 extension since the gateway acts as a DHCPv6 > relay. However, it is very hard to update those gateways to use RA > announcing the route information. > > 3. The handsets with MIF feature need to visit subscribed/operator > provided service. Some traffic is routed to the operator’s network through > 3G interface instead of to Internet through WiFi. DHCPv6 will be used to > configure these specific routes. > > You can refer to the following report on more description of MIF use case > in cellular network. > http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23853.htm > > > ***Broadband network > > 1. WiFi network. Some WiFi hotspots provide local services. The > route configuration on RG is needed to direct some traffic to local network > while other traffic to the Internet. > > 2. VPN network. When a user connect to enterprise VPN network, the > routing of VPN traffic need to be configured. Due to the large number of > such VPN network, we cannot assume all the VPN network only use RA. DHCPv6 > provides another choice which may be preferred by the VPN network. > > > We summarize the requirements and the use cases as the following: 1) In > view of the DHCPv6 requirements in several fields, vendor-specific options > lead to several segmented definitions. An IETF defined general option is a > better choice. 2) Per user/host configuration makes DHCPv6 be used for the > on-demand configuration. 3) The centralized relay architecture is a widely > used way at present for IPv4 and it will also be used for IPv6. That is > IETF’s responsibility to support such requirement. > > Regards, > Tao Sun > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com>wrote: > >> On Nov 22, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> >> The similar userland-vs-kernel (read DHCP vs RA) discussion has it that >> it is easier to do one not both. >> >> >> Of course it is easier to do one, not both. But it's no problem to do >> both. >> >> (also relating to your earlier mentioning compiling being lengthy for ARM >> kernel - yes it is quicker to compile userland DHCP than kernel RA). >> >> >> This is easily solved by cross-compiling. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >> >> >
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
