Re: [netext] [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming issue

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,Mohana and Marco:
I am wondering whether we need to write something to address roaming issue
or what we talk about here is just to clarify how to understand local MAG routing applicability.
As for me, I think it is beneficial to have some explaination text/section addressing this in the PS draft.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[e-mail]>
To: "Marco Liebsch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>; "Sri Gundavelli" <[e-mail]>; "Cypher, David E." <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming issue


Hi Marco,

Such disussion we had is more to understand the local MAG routing
applicability. 

>Or should we provide additional info in the
> PS?
So, I think in PS we need not talk about SA between MAG. Or LMA or some
other entity helping in creating the security association between MAGs. 

Thanks.

BR,
Mohana
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:19 PM
> To: Mohana Jeyatharan
> Cc: Marco Liebsch; Qin Wu; Sri Gundavelli; Cypher, David E.;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming issue
> 
> Hi Mohana,
> 
> Mohana Jeyatharan schrieb:
> > Hi Marco and all,
> >
> >
> >> The PMIPv6 domain term does not fit in here, in my opinion, as we
> >> do not talk about the scope of a single MN's mobility, but the
> >>
> > relation
> >
> >> between mobility management components of two MNs.
> >>
> >
> > I agree on this.
> >
> >
> >> solution: PMIPv6 components, which exchange signaling in the
context
> >>
> > of
> >
> >> route optimization, must share a security association. Everything
else
> >>
> > is
> >
> >> deployment specific.
> >>
> >
> > Here we can probably explain which entities need security
association
> > for RO to be succussful. This is more towards solution space tied to
> > different local MAG RO scenarios. I think the current localized RO
> > solution drafts have captured these.
> >
> We can only provide examples. To establish a forwarding tunnel between
> MAGs does not mean
> we need an SA between them. Only if we perform signaling between MAGs,
> the SA is required.
> As you said, this is solution specific. So, to be on the safe side, we
> could discuss the
> picture and indicate that the solution may need an SA between the two
> associated LMAs
> and the two associated MAGs. Or should we provide additional info in
the
> PS?
> 
> marco
> 
> > BR,
> > Mohana
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:56 PM
> >> To: Qin Wu
> >> Cc: Sri Gundavelli; Cypher, David E.; Mohana Jeyatharan; Marco
> >>
> > Liebsch;
> >
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [Netext] localized route optimization - roaming issue
> >>
> >> Now coming back to my original opinion that I don't see benefit in
> >> mandating support for or ruling out any particular roaming
scenarios.
> >> The picture I proposed could be used in the Problem Statement (PS)
> >> at the most to discuss *issues* when components being associated
> >> with MN1 and MN2 are distributed between administrative domains.
> >> The PMIPv6 domain term does not fit in here, in my opinion, as we
> >> do not talk about the scope of a single MN's mobility, but the
> >>
> > relation
> >
> >> between mobility management components of two MNs.
> >>
> >>  From that picture I see that only one requirement derives for the
> >> protocol
> >> solution: PMIPv6 components, which exchange signaling in the
context
> >>
> > of
> >
> >> route optimization, must share a security association. Everything
else
> >>
> > is
> >
> >> deployment specific.
> >>
> >> marco
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Qin Wu wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank for your clarification.
> >>> In this sense, no matter which domain the MN's MAG belongs to,  as
> >>>
> > long
> >
> >> as the MN does not change LMA and MN's current MAG can setup SA
with
> >>
> > MN's
> >
> >> LMA, MN is still in the same PMIP6 domain as its LMA. Right?
> >>
> >>> Regard!
> >>> -Qin
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[e-mail]>
> >>> To: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc:
>