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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carlos,
   Addressing the 4 open issues from the last mail.

On 11-06-06 02:51 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
>>> - 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).

Yes. There is complexity involved here, but not because of the messages 
being bidirectional. The root of the complexity is that the MAG and the 
LMA can both be initiators. We tried a lot to come up with a 
deterministic model where one entity can always be the initiator and we 
could not do so.

>>> - 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?

This is exactly how it is done. In A12 (before it turns into A22) the 
MAG is the initiator and the text says that the initiator should tear 
down the session.

>>> - 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?

We left it out of scope since an IPv4-only MAG is explicitly ruled out 
by RFC5844

"Both the mobility entities, the local mobility anchor and the
  mobile access gateway are dual-stack (IPv4/IPv6) enabled.
  Irrespective of the type of transport network (IPv4 or IPv6)
  separating these two entities, the mobility signaling is always
  based on Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol."

>>> - Section 9.1 (page 17). In the LRI message, couldn't a lifetime value
>>> set to 0 used instead of the S=1 flag?

Yes. This is possible, but is there any benefit to changing this?

Thanks
Suresh