|
Hi all, I went through the draft and have few comments. 1)Introduction first para says " 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)." [Mohana] Mn and CN may be better word. Bcos later in draft
communication End points are defined as MN and CN. 2)Introduction second para says " Objectives of designing a solution for localized routing in
PMIPv6 are to specify protocol messages and enable associated
protocol operation between PMIPv6 components to support the set up
of a direct routing path for data packets between the MNs' MAGs
without forwarding these packets through the MNs' LMA(s) and to
maintain localized routing in case one or both MNs handover to a
different MAG." [Mohana] Here again it says that direct path between MN's MAGs. I
think it is between Mn's MAG and CN's MAG. 3)In the conventions and terminology section The second bullet: Correspondent Node (CN): Correspondent Node with or without IP mobility support. The CN
represents the communication peer of an MN, which is attached to a MAG and
registered with an LMA according to the PMIPv6 specification. [Mohana]The usage of "an" in front of MN and LMA should be changed
to a. 4)In the conventions and terminology section The third bullet: there is mentioning about a single PMIPv6 domain. [Mohana] Is it MN and CN placed in single operator/provider domain running
PMIPv6? 5)In the conventions and terminology section Fourth bullet mentions about IDs [Mohana] Is it only ID? What other information stored. What are
these IDs? Perhaps a description will be good. 6)In section 3.1 general observation section 1st para " Following the architecture of PMIPv6, rather entities of the
network infrastructure are dedicated to perform signaling to set
up a more direct route between an MN and a CN." [Mohana] I am not sure the meaning of this. Does it mean that
when PMIP is present, RO needs to be established by using signaling between
network entities? Perhaps a rewording is useful. 7)In section 3.1 general observation section last paragraph [Mohana] It is mentioned two benefits of loacl MAG routing.There is
mentioning about lower cost, lower delay, lower packet loss. But clear
indication as to the two benefits was not present. 8) In section 3.2 all mentioning is about "PMIPv6 domain". [Mohana] I do not want to start the discussion again. But, isn't it
better to say what this PMIPv6 domain is. MN and CN in same operator domain or
something like that. Bcos there is another section on roaming which is
different from this. 9) [Mohana]Again in section 3.2, there is mentioning about some race
issue in multiple LMA Case, when there is handoff. But no clear description of such
issue is highlighted. A small description will be good. 10) In section 3.2, the local MAG issues are highlighted into cases(case
A11, A..) and again some issues (multiple LMA, handoff in multiple LMA) are
captured in bullet form. I am not sure whether there are any overlap in
text here. 11)Section on IPv4 considerations. I think the current text is fine. It
is not too complex and highlights how local MAG routing canbe done when there
is IPv4 HoA or IPv4 transport. BR, Mohana |
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.