From: "Glen Zorn" <gwz at net-zen.net> To: "'Qin Wu'" <sunseawq at huawei.com>; <liebsch at nw.neclab.eu>; <sjjeong at etri.re.kr> Cc: <netext at ietf.org> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 10:54 AM Subject: RE: comment on draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-00.txt > 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? [Qin]: Before the locally routing is allowed between two communicating MNs attaching to the same access link connected to the mobile access gateway, the negotiation aspect between MAG and LMA is required to enforce localized routing on the given MAG. Because whether locally routing is allowed on the MAG can be controlled by the LMA.Otherwise, the manual configuration mechanism is required which is not flexible and scalable.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.