Re: [16NG] Review on FMIP6 over IEEE 802.16e Networks

Hi Daniel,
  I agree with Jin-Hyeock's comment, I think that Sec 3 should probably not be removed but instead a clarification to the base FMIPv6 can be made.
  On 802.16e links, the AR-Info triplet:
 [Router's L2 address, Router's IP address and Prefix] 
the prefix in the triplet is valid on the interface to which the Access Point (identified by AP-ID) and is different for each MN that is attached due to p2p link model. 

Based on this, the second paragraph can be slightly modified as follows:
Figure 1 shows the deployment with two ARs (ASN-GWs).  
Each MN under an access router
   (AR) and several base stations (BSs) forms a single subnet.  In this
   case, the movement between BSs does not always require IP mobility.
   The handover from BS1 to BS2,  can be carried
   out using link layer mobility without IP mobility.  However, the
   handover from BS5 to BS6 may require IP mobility since they belong to
   the different subnets respectively.We are checking if Sec. 6 requires any changes because of p2p link model and let you know soon.

Regards,

Behcet
----- Original Message ----
From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
To: mipshop@ietf.org
Cc: "16ng@ietf.org" <16ng@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 5:37:45 AM
Subject: [16NG] Review on FMIP6 over IEEE 802.16e Networks

To MIPSHOP WG,

Here is an official review by 16NG expert as Jinhyeock Choi. Also, two
more experts are in the progress of reviewing this document. They will
get back to MIPSHOP soon.

=================

I went over the draft and overall it looks fine. It presents an useful
information to efficiently run FMIPv6 over 802.16e with primitives.

I found no technical issue except one.

There are incorrect statements in Sec 3 Deployment Architecture. For
example, there can be more than 2 subnets in figure 1, whereas it's
written that 'Figure 1 shows the deployment with two IP subnets'. In
fact there can be as many subnets as the # of MNs according to
per-MN-prefix link/subnet model. I recommend to re-write the section
or remove it altogether. IMO, the draft will do fine without the
section.

I have a few more comments but they are all editorial. I'll send them
to the authors in a separate mail.

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration.

Best Regards

JinHyeock

=================

Hope this helps...

-- Daniel Park

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