The Abstract says: In Proxy Mobile IPv6, mobile nodes are topologically anchored at a Local Mobility Anchor, which forwards all data for registered mobile nodes. The set up and maintenance of localized routing, which allows forwarding of data packets between mobile nodes and correspondent nodes directly without involvement of the Local Mobility Anchor in forwarding, is not considered. and section 1 says: The IETF has specified Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] as the base protocol for network-based localized mobility management (NetLMM), which takes basic operation for registration, de- registration and handover into account. In scope of the base protocol is the set up and maintenance of a forwarding tunnel between an MN's Mobility Access Gateway (MAG) and its selected Local Mobility Anchor (LMA). Data packets will always traverse the MN's MAG and its LMA, irrespective of the location of the MN's remote communication endpoint. Even though two communicating MNs might be attached to the same MAG or to different MAGs of the same local mobility domain, packets will traverse the MNs' LMA(s). However, it appears that both these passages are incorrect, since section 6.10.3 of RFC 5213 both considers local routing and specifically permits it: If there is data traffic between a visiting mobile node and a correspondent node that is locally attached to an access link connected to the mobile access gateway, the mobile access gateway MAY optimize on the delivery efforts by locally routing the packets and by not reverse tunneling them to the mobile node's local mobility anchor. The flag EnableMAGLocalRouting MAY be used for controlling this behavior.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.