[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[netext] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-cui-netext-route-optimization-agent-ext-00



Hi all,

I have posted a new draft, and this draft may be accessed by the link:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cui-netext-route-optimization-agent-ext-00.txt

The goal of this draft is to extend the function of MAG to eliminate
the gap between MIP and PMIP.
Since the mobile node in PMIP domain, as the role of correspondent
node, can't support route optimization, this draft introduces an extension
solution for this shortage.

If somebody is interested in this topic or has any comment on it, please
let me know.

All response are appreciated!!

Thanks in advance.

Regards
Xiangsong


----- Original Message ----- From: "IETF I-D Submission Tool" <idsubmission at ietf.org>
To: <Xiangsong.Cui at huawei.com>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 5:37 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-cui-netext-route-optimization-agent-ext-00



A new version of I-D, draft-cui-netext-route-optimization-agent-ext-00.txt
has been successfuly submitted by Xiangsong Cui and posted to the IETF
repository.

Filename: draft-cui-netext-route-optimization-agent-ext
Revision: 00
Title: Reflector Extension for Route Optimization Agent
Creation_date: 2009-10-16
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 18

Abstract:
Route Optimization is a very useful feature in Mobile IPv6. Mobile
node can communicate with correspondent node without the involvement
of the home agent by Route Optimization. But there are some
limitations to this feature. One problem is that the mobile node and
the correspondent node must be capable for Route Optimization. This
document introduces an extension mechanism used for Route
Optimization and this extension mechanism can enable Route
Optimization be used between mobile node and simple IP node. In the
extension solution, the MAG can reflect the RO-related signal
messages and fulfill the Route Optimization procedure on behalf of
the simple IP node.





Conventions used in this document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].



The IETF Secretariat.




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.