Re: [multimob] Comments on draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,
  Please see inline.

Regards,

Behcet



----- Original Message ----
From: Thomas C. Schmidt <[e-mail]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hui Deng <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:35:33 PM
Subject: Re: [multimob] Comments on draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

Hi Behcet,

I'm in charge to defend Hui as the figure is from my side.

It is not exactly clear why you state "Figure 2 depicts local routing
as something totally different" ??? -
what is expressed here: a content source local to the PMIP-domain - but 
not local to a particular MAP. 

[behcet] In PMIP6 there is no MAP. You mean MAG here?

And in consequence a (multicast) routing 
  within the PMIP domain without LMA-MAG tunneling. That's what the text 
says, as well.

[behcet] In PMIP6, the nodes between MAG and LMA do not matter because all traffic is tunneled. 
Local routing in Fig. 2 would refer to a packet sent from MN1 to MN2 being routed by MAG1 locally without tunneling it to LMA1. 
If the packet MN1 sends is a multicast packet, RFC 5213 does not describe how such a packet would be routed. Is this what you are trying to address?

This has been discussed prior to version 00 on the mailing list ... and 
seems a reasonable approach to me: what is "certainly not correct"?

Regards,

Thomas

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hello Hui,
>   Thanks for your hard work in coming up with this revised version. I 
> read it.
>   My comment is regarding Section 2. Local routing in PMIP6 as described 
> in Section 6.10.3 of RFC 5213 refers to the routing by the MAG locally 
> without tunneling to the LMA. In 
> draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01 Figure 2 depicts local routing 
> as something totally different. The text you have seems to be OK but the 
> figure is certainly not correct.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Hui Deng <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:17:13 AM
> Subject: [multimob] Fwd: I-D 
> Action:draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt
> 
> Hello, all
>  
> We have updated the draft based on the list discussion.
> Please help to review and comment.
>  
> thanks
>  
> -Hui
> 
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> 
>        Title           : Multicast Support Requirements for Proxy Mobile 
> IPv6
>        Author(s)       : H. Deng, et al.
>        Filename        : draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt
>        Pages           : 14
>        Date            : 2008-10-19
> 
> This document summarizes requirements for multicast listener support
> in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) scenarios.  In correspondance to
> PMIPv6, multicast mobility management requirements do not request any
> active participation of the mobile node.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

-- 

° Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik
° University of Applied Sciences
° Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg, Germany
° Fon: [phone], Fax: -8409
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt



      

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob