[netlmm] Comments on draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

Hi folks,

I quickly went through the diff of the new revision 
(-02) against the previous one (-01). I have the 
following comments (my previous comments on -01 still 
hold, I won't repeat them here.)

- In Section 4.5. Handling of Link-Local addresses, 
draft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02 makes the 
following statement:

>    The link-local addresses are unique to each MN, or
>    expressed with different words, the link between
>    the MN and the MAG is effectively a point-to-point
>    link, with no other nodes than the MN and the MAG
>    on the link.

i.e. it is restricted to the case where the last hop 
link layer is point-to-point. To me this seems to 
contradict the NetLMM charter:

>   The protocol itself will be agnostic with respect
>   to the last hop link layer protocol between the
>   mobile node and the access router.

or I am missing something?

I also have a comment on one of the Link-Local handling 
scenario described in the draft:

>    b.  Link-local addresses may have MAG-wide scope;
>        i.e., all MNs attached to the same MAG will
>        have link-local reachability to each other. 
>        The consequence of this is that nodes may
>        discover they have link-local reachability at
>        one instant in time, but be deprived of it at
>        the next instant.  In other words, because of
>        node movements, nothing can really be assumed
>        about the reachability of other nodes through
>        link-local addresses from one moment to
>        another. 

IMHO it should be either replaced by the following 
(s/MAG/link/g):

   b.  Link-local addresses may have link-wide scope;    
       i.e., all MNs attached to the same link will
       have link-local reachability to each other.  The
       consequence of this is that nodes may discover
       they have link-local reachability at one instant
       in time, but be deprived of it at the next
       instant.  In other words, because of node
       movements, nothing can really be assumed about
       the reachability of other nodes through
       link-local addresses from one moment to another.

or alternatively, that could be added as a fourth 
scenario (d?)

- In Section 6.5. Prefix Allocation Option and Section 
6.6. Prefix Delegation Option,

There is two descriptions for a field which is not 
present in the Option figures. Are those left over 
from revision -01, or are the figures wrong?

>   Address Prefix
>      Variable.  The value indicates the prefix length
>      of the prefix or address allocated to the mobile
>      node.  If the prefix length is equal to the full
>      address length, the option describes an address 
>      allocation, otherwise it describes a prefix
>      allocation. 

>   Address Prefix
>      Variable.  The value indicates the prefix length
>      of the prefix delegated to the mobile node.

Best,

--julien

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm