[Netext] PMIPv6 local routing - update of the PS

[marco.liebsch at nw.neclab.eu (Marco Liebsch)]

Hi Qin,

please see inline.

Qin Wu schrieb:
>> Folks,
>>
>> according to the feedback the current version of the localized routing 
>> problem
>> statement seems to cover almost all aspects which are relevant for the
>> NetExt work on localized routing.
>> Two remaining aspects have been addressed, which should be considered in
>> an update of the draft to be in line with the WG's view. These are as 
>> follows:
>>
>> *Localized Routing between a PMIP attached MN and a regular IPv6 node*:
>> This was a comment from Carlos and addresses the type of nodes
>> RFC5213 mentions in a few paragraphs about local routing. We could clarify
>> this offline and better text about what RFC5213 describes and how this
>> impacts NetExt work on localized routing will go into an update of the PS.
>>     
>
> [Qin]: It is  a interesting issue. What scenario do we need to think about?
> Suppose the CN is a regular IPv6 node without PMIP protocol support,
> It seems difficult to utitlize any PMIP6 protocol to estalish direct Path between the CN
> and the MAG which the MN attaches to. Based on this, only one scenario occur to me is 
> one mobile node and one regualr IPv6 node attahes to the same MAG. Is there any other scenario I miss?
> if someone can do some clarification, it would be helpful.
>   
The isse raised by Carlos was actually referring to the text in RFC5213, 
as this can be understood
as localized routing on a single MAG between a PMIPv6-attached MN and a 
regular IPv6
node rather than between two PMIPv6-attached nodes. We'll need to update 
the text in the PS accordingly
to cover the 'state of the art'. But according to chairs, the scope of 
NetExt covers solely localized routing
between two PMIPv6-attached nodes. And I think this makes sense, as 
handling localized routing with
a regular IPv6 node can be easily handled as long as both nodes are 
attached to the same AR/MAG, but
as soon as one node hands over to a different AR, there is much more to 
be done to maintain localized routing
between these nodes. So, I think the limitation in NetExt is acceptable.

marco


>   
>> *Consideration of IPv4*:
>> This is a good point made by Sangjin and the PS should cover an analysis
>> of relevant issues with IPv4 for PMIPv6 localized routing. There is 
>> valuable
>> early work available, such as draft-jeong-netlmm-pmipv6-roreq-01 and
>> draft-wu-netext-pmipv6-ipv4-ro-ps-00. 
>>     
>
> [Qin];Thank you for your initiating this discussion, it is helpful for us to move the PMIPv6 local routing work forward .
>
> I think it makes sense to send a
>   
>> separate mail to collect different aspects of IPv4 problems in PMIPv6
>> localized routing and to discuss individual issues we need to cover in
>> the PS.
>>
>> marco
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetExt mailing list
>> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
>> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>