RE: pmipv4 of WiMAX forum (Re: [Mip4] Question aboutdraft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode)

["Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <kleung at cisco.com>]

Hi Jun.

We are working with WiMAX Forum members to address the technical gaps in the draft.  Currently, we are collecting the review comments and will update the draft accordingly.

Kent 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jun AWANO [mailto:j-awano at az.jp.nec.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:23 PM
To: mip4
Subject: pmipv4 of WiMAX forum (Re: [Mip4] Question aboutdraft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode)

Hi, kent

Please let me ask about your draft.

Your draft says,
"This document describes WiMAX Forum and 3GPP2 solution  for the base Proxy Mobile IPv4 function which enables  another entity to provide mobility support on behalf of  an unaltered and mobility-unaware IPv4 device."

But, I think that the PMIPv4 described in your draft seems different from the one specified in WiMAX Forum spec (WiMAX Forum Network Architechture stage2/3).

Do you plan to change the PMIPv4 spec of WiMAX Forum to match your draft?

Best Regards,
Jun


John.zhao wrote:
> Hi,kent
> 
> 	Could I ask for two problems about this draft?
> 	1)What is the defination of you have just mentioned the Mobility Agent Advertisement Extension?
> 	2)What is the origination of pseudo MAC address?
> 
> 			Best Rgds,
> Thanks,
> 
> 	　　　　　　　　John.zhao
> 　	　	　　　　　john.zhao at huawei.com
> 　　　	　	　　　　　　2007-07-26
> ======= 2007-07-26 12:00:00 You have said:=======
>> Kent Leung (kleung) wrote:
>>> Hi Bruno.  Sorry, I missed this question.
>>>
>>> In this case, the Router Advertisement will not have the Mobility 
>>> Agent Advertisement Extension.
>>>   
>> Since a router implementing MIP4 proxy mode includes FA function, 
>> isn't it logical and consistent to include a Mobility Agent 
>> Advertisment extension in RA to indicate FA support?
>> I would suggest this behaviour can be added to your draft, possibly 
>> extending the Mobility Agent Advertisment extension to indicate PMIP 
>> support (i think some place is left for RFU in the format).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Such addition is not intended to be processed (understandable) by 
>> simple IP terminals, but rather by terminals that might behave as 
>> simple IP or MIP and need to choose which protocol to use.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your reply.
>> Bruno.
>>> Kent
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet
>>> [mailto:bruno.mongazon-cazavet at alcatel-lucent.fr]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:48 AM
>>> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
>>> Subject: [Mip4] Question about draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> When a router implements this draft, how should it reacts to Router 
>>> Solicitation?
>>> In particular:
>>> -should the router fill the Mobility Agent Advertisement extension 
>>> in the reply?
>>> -should the FA capability be set if only PMIP is supported?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Bruno.
>>>
> 



--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/


-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/