Re: [MEXT] Comments on "draft-sjkoh-mext-pmip-dmc-03"

Dear Jong-Hyuok Lee,

Thank you for the valuable comments. Please see my inline responses.

1) We suppose that both MN and CN are in the same domain in the S-PMIP and
SD-PMIP. So, all of the nodes in SD-PMIP have the same prefix.
2) In the draft, we didn't consider the handover scenario yet. However, we
will revise the draft to include the handover scenarios within this month.

Best Regards, Ji-In Kim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ph.D student, Communications Protocols Lab, Kyungpook National University.
1370 Sankyuk-dong, Buk-gu, Daegu, Korea.
E-mail: jiin16@gmail.com 
Tel: 82-53-940-8608 C.P: 82-10-9371-1324

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Jong-Hyouk Lee
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:36 AM
> To: sjkoh@knu.ac.kr; mext
> Subject: [MEXT] Comments on "draft-sjkoh-mext-pmip-dmc-03"
>
> Dear authors,
>
> I read the draft "draft-sjkoh-mext-pmip-dmc-03" and have
comments/questions:
>
> How is an MN's handover handled in SD-PMIP? For instance: 1) It's not
clear how a prefix of the MN is provided; and 2) it is also not clear from
the draft how ongoing packets (destined to the MN or sent from the
> MN) are handled during handovers.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> IMARA Team, INRIA, France
> Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random
>
> #email: jong-hyouk.lee (at) inria.fr || hurryon (at) gmail.com
> #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext