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:

...

> >> 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.

Right, signaling isn't discussed because there is none: it's a matter of
local MAG configuration (though how the LMA is supposed to "enforce" is a
mystery to me -- maybe by refusing to tunnel traffic from a MAG to itself?).
In any case the kinds of things that you mention above might be good to
include in the problem statement draft, too.