Re: [MEXT] Comments on using HMIP as approaches to distributed mobility management

[Romain KUNTZ <[e-mail]>]

Dear Luo Wen,

Just a quick note to let you know that we have talked about the HMIP applicability to DMM in our summary draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00#page-6

Thank you,
romain

On Jun 23, 2011, at 2:07, [e-mail] wrote:

> 
> Dear Raj and all: 
> 
> Mr. Raj, thank you for providing your considrations on using Mobile IPv6 and its extensions as approaches to distributed mobility management. And these days, we have studied HMIP which is mentioned in your consideraion, and in fact, we believe that the HMIPv6 is not a right way to resolve the problems which DMM tries to deal with. 
> 
> Mr Raj, as discussed to reuse the existing approaches for distributed mobility management in your presentation paper, such as Mobile IPv6 and its extensions, HMIPv6 was considered as a way to allocate mobility anchors that are topologically close to the MN. 
> But in fact, the HMIPv6 is not comfortable to allocate this 'topologically close' mobility anchor point for the MN according to the MAP selection mechanism as specified in RFC5380. Basically MAP selection mechanism provides two different processes for the MN that performs inter-AR movement frequently or not. For frequently inter-AR movement case, MAP selection in Distributed MAP environment is recommended so that a furthest available MAP is chosen to register by the MN to avoid frequent re-registrations. Otherwise, MAP selection in flat mobility architecture is recommended so that a MAP (in the AR) is chosen as an anchor point by the MN when performing a handoff, in which the HMIPv6 is performed similar as MIPv6 approach. As all above, making the HMIPv6 more effectively, the MN always tries to select a furthest MAP to register to reduce the signaling (BU/BA to the HA and CN) when the inter-AR handoff is performed. 
> 
> In additional, a bi-directional tunnel is established after the successful registration procedure between the MN and MAP. All packets sent by the MN are tunneled to the MAP. So that even route optimization is performed between the MN and CN, all the packets shall be tunneled to the anchor point (MAP) first, and then route to the CN. This fundamental approach of HMIPv6 does not provide more benefits to resolve the route optimization issue, but just reuse the mechanism of MIPv6 and even make it worse. 
> 
> What do you think? 
> 
> BR 
> LUOWEN
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext