[Netext] next steps for netext

[yuankui.zhao at gmail.com (john.zhao)]

Hi carlos,

2009/4/20 Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>:
> Hi John,
>> >> > I've sent another e-mail regarding this (hope there is more clear).
>> >> > Summarising, what I call a fixed point of attachment is a MAG as it is
>> >> > defined in RFC5213 that does not move. I call a mobile point of
>> >> > attachment a MAG that would also be able to move (like an MR) within the
>> >> > PMIPv6 domain.
>> >> [John.zhao]So,would you like extend the MAG capability to a moving
>> >> router,right? If thus, where is the LMA for this MAG?
>> >
>> > Well, it can be seen the other way around, to extend the MAG capability
>> > to be mobile...
>> >
>> [John.zhao]So,is it a method for moving router or MAG? And what is the
>> difference to the mobile Router to connect to the fixed or mobile
>> attachment point as you mentioned?
>
> I see it as a method for a MAG that is able to move. The key point -- as
> I see it -- is to enable network-based localised mobility domains also
> to moving platforms. By doing that, a legacy MN would be able to roam
> within a domain that compasses not only MAGs that do not change their
> point of attachment, but also MAGs that are also able to move.
>
[John.zhao]Well. From MN perspective, it should be no difference
between these difference kinds of MAGs,right? And I feel the moving
MAGs will use the PBU/PBA to help MN keep moving with LMA, right? In
another side, the moving MAG needs to consider to select a mobile
mechanism to support the mobility of itself, right?

Best Rgds,
Thanks,

John.zhao