[DMM] Some comments on draft-chan-dmm-framework-gap-analysis-05.

luo.wen@zte.com.cn Tue, 23 October 2012 08:21 UTC

To: h.a.chan@ieee.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <OF760FAA82.4AD0D495-ON48257AA0.0023F911-48257AA0.002DD3AF@zte.com.cn>
From: luo.wen@zte.com.cn
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:20:38 +0800
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002DD3AC48257AA0_="
Cc: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [DMM] Some comments on draft-chan-dmm-framework-gap-analysis-05.
Precedence: list

Hi Antony:

Thanks to your new draft, 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-dmm-framework-gap-analysis-05. I 
have some comments as following.

1. I have some concern on the statement (section 6.1.2) 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Different deployments using the same abstract functions can be
   compatible with each other if their functions use common message
   formats between these functions." 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I don't think it is a sutiable criterion, i.e. I don't think 
that sharing same abstract functions necessary indicate different 
deployments can compatible with each other.
Taking figure 6 in your draft as an example, this deployment is using the 
abstract functions MR, LM and LU as indicated in the figure. Meantime, 
PMIPv6(RFC[5213]) is also using same abstact functions as described in the 
draft. Then, according to the criterion, these two designs should be 
compatiable with each other. However, consider that, if these two designs 
are deployed together (e.g. one operator deploys both two designs), and 
when MN handover from your AR2 to a RFC[5213] specified MAG, I am not sure 
how to keep all IPv6 prefixes which are anchored at AR1, AR2 and AR3 
respectively alive. Taking figure 8 as anther example, I am not sure how 
to perform  location management if mobile node handovers to a RFC[5213] 
specified PMIPv6 domain from the domain illustrated by this figure. 
Because the RFC[5213] specified LMA or MAG doesn't have such location 
management interface with the LM in figure 8.

Another concern about the "compatibility" is the analysis comparisons 
"compatibility" in table 1 (section 6.3). You mark "Y" to all items. But, 
for example, I am not very clear about how can HAHA be compatible with 
MIPv6, and how can Multiple MRs and Distributed LM be compatible with 
PMIPv6 (as explained above) and etc. May be we should not jump to a 
conclusion before a carefully examine. Besides, if I am not making 
mistake, the compatibility also includes the compatibility with already 
exsiting end host (e.g. mobile node), right?

2.  In table 1 section 6.3, why the last four analysis comparisons for 
Unified framework are marked as N/A ? Besides, I think the Unified 
framework is not a mobility solution, so why you put it in this comparison 
table?

3. Still table 1, I think the last analysis comparisons of Multiple MRs 
and Distributed LM database must be missing. 

4. Still table 1, I think the last analysis comparisons item of Optimize 
Route should be "except first few packets".

BR
Luowen

[DMM] Some comments on draft-chan-dmm-framework-g… luo.wen
Re: [DMM] Some comments on draft-chan-dmm-framewo… h chan
[DMM] 答复: RE: Some comments on draft-chan-dmm-fra… luo.wen
Re: [DMM] Some comments on draft-chan-dmm-framewo… h chan