Re: [netext] comment on draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-00.txt

["Glen Zorn" <gwz at net-zen.net>]

Qin Wu [mailto:sunseawq at huawei.com] writes:> Hi,
> Although RFC 5213 considers local routing, however it is focusing on
> only one limited scenario where two communciating MNs attach to the
> same MAG and there is no localized routing signaling to be specified to
> allow two communciating MNs locally routing.
> Comparing with the section 6.10.3 of RFC 5213, what the abstract of I-
> D.ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-00 is emphasizing is localized routing
> signaling design is not
> considered in  the RFC5213. 

That seems like something of a straw man to me: if both MNs are attached to
the same MAG, how much signaling is required?

> Therefore I think the abstract of I-D.ietf-
> netext-pmip6-lr-ps-00 has no conflict with what is described in the
> section 6.10.3 of RFC5213. As regarding the section 1, the only
> inconsistent text with the description of section 6.10.3 of RFC 5213 is
> "
> 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).
> 
> "
> therefore I would like suggest to remove this inconsistent text or
> reword this text  as
> "
> Even though two communicating MNs might be attached to the
> same MAG or to different MAGs of the same local mobility domain,
> packets *USUALLY* traverse the MNs' LMA(s) as well.
> "
> Any thoughts?

The draft as it is seems to imply that local routing in PMIPv6 is an
entirely new concept, which just isn't true.  I think that it would be a
good thing if the draft made clear that it is just proposing that the
optimization mentioned in 6.10.3 of RFC5213 be extended to include localized
routing between any two mobile nodes in the same PMIPv6 Domain, not
inventing localized routing.

...