Re: [netext] WG LC: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

>>> - Section 4 (page 5). What is the rationale behind the U-LRA message? To
>>> me it is not clear and I see that it complicates the protocol (as
>>> introduces unsolicited messages that impact on the state machine).
>>> Besides, the draft should IMHO clearly state if the LRI message sent in
>>> response to the U-LRA needs to be acknowledged with another LRA (so the
>>> sequence is U-LRA (from MAG to LMA), LRI (from LMA to MAG) and the LRA
>>> (from MAG to LMA).
>> 
>> OK. I have removed the U-LRA as it adds complexity for no reason.
>> 

What about the case when the LR state at the MAG will expire? Will the
refresh be always done by the LMA?

[Qin]: No,I think both the MAG and the LMA should be allowed to refresh the lifetime.
However requiring U-LRA should be acknowlded by the subsequent LRI/LRA message
exchange looks like three time handshakes.
I am not sure the node sending U-LRA MUST wait for LRI back for confirmation
of refresh. But I think such complexity is not so much since refresh does not happen
all the time.

>>> - Why do the MAGs need to ask the LMA for authorization to perform LR
>>> even when the MNs are both attached to the same MAG? I'm fine with that,
>>> but it should be clear why that decision was taken, IMHO.
>> 
>> The intent was to centralize the policy decision and minimize
>> configuration, but I am open to suggestions.
> 
> I'd remove the need for authorization in that case.
> 

MNs may be attached to the same MAG, but the LR may not be offered to all
such MNs. In fact, it may be explicitly disallowed if there are policy
restrictions (for legal reasons). So, you need to have authorization.

[Qin]: Agree.

-Rajeev


>> 
>>> - Why do the MAGs check EnableMAGLocalRouting flag in A11 but not in
>>> A12?
>> 
>> In the A11 scenario we are still within the bounds of RFC5213 that
>> requires checking the flag. RFC5213 does not cover the 1 MAG 2 LMA case.
> 
> In my reading of RFC5213, the flag is not restricted to one single LMA
> case. It just talks about visiting mobile node and correspondent node
> locally attached to the same MAG.
> 
>> 
>>> - Using LRI in both MAG-to-LMA and LMA-to-MAG makes the protocol a bit
>>> complex, because they are not used exactly for the same thing (they are
>>> more than just initiators, as I understand them).
>>> - Section 7. Why cannot just the MAG stop performing LR when detects
>>> that one of the MNs is no longer attached/delivery to one of the MNs
>>> fails?
>>> - Section 8. Isn't in the scope the case the MAG has an IPv4-only
>>> address? I guess for that case it is needed to define also a MAG IPv4
>>> address, right?
>>> - Section 9.1 (page 17). In the LRI message, couldn't a lifetime value
>>> set to 0 used instead of the S=1 flag?
>>> 
> 
> What about the previous four comments?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Carlos
> 
>>> Editorial:
>> 
>> I have fixed all your editorial comments in -03.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Suresh
>> 
>> 

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