[16NG] review of the new revision (ipv6 over ipcs)

Basavaraj, all

I reviewed the new version of this spec, and
I'm generally quite happy with it. I found three
small remaining issues which are listed below:
>          +-----+   CID1    +-----+          +-----------+
>          | MS1 |----------/| BS1 |----------|     AR    |-----[Internet <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-06#ref-Internet>]
>          +-----+         / +-----+          +-----------+
>             .           /        ____________
>             .     CIDn /        ()__________()
>          +-----+      /            L2 Tunnel
>          | MSn |-----/
>          +-----+
>
>
>    Figure 5: The IPv6 AR is separate from the BS, which acts as a bridge
>   
The part about the BS acting as a bridge seems surprising.
Is this really the case? A standard bridge function?

>  This
>  section presents a model for the last mile link, i.e. the link to
>  which MSs attach themselves.
I would remove this sentence. You need to explain
how the link looks like from an IP perspective.
And I think you are doing that. Whether there
is a distributed or integrated BS/AR at the other
end is really not a key issue.

>  IEEE
>    802.16 also defines a secondary management connection that can be
>    used for host configuration.  However support for secondary
>    management connections is not mandatory.  A transport connection has
>    the advantage of it being used for host configuration as well as for
>    user data.
Are you specifying something about the use of the
management connections? If not, take it out.

> Each MS belongs to
>    a different link.  No two MSs belong to the same link.
Duplication. Remove the first sentence.

Jari


_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng