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

[Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch at nw.neclab.eu>]

Hi Gle,

just to complement what Qin already wrote, please see inline.

Glen Zorn schrieb:
> 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?
>   
There is good reason to have signaling from the LMA. One is that RFC5213 
requires the LMA to
enforce localized routing for the case that both MNs share the same MAG. 
A further good reason
to have singaling and some control from the LMA is that one or even both 
MNs may handover
to a different MAG, hence it's good to have the LMA as common stateful 
entity.

>   
> > 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.
>
> ...
>   
It was not the intention to write the draft in such way. If you read it 
such as
the PS invents localized routing, then we may need to rewrite associated
sentences. Please point to them. Well, if the draft invents something then
it may be problems, as it's a problem statement ;-)

The draft does not ignore that RFC5213 writes about localized routing
and covers some recommendations how to handle it. But it also sais that
there are missing pieces. And the PS tries to analyze issues in the 
context of
localized routing with PMIPv6 to find out which pieces the solution needs to
provide.

marco