Subject: [mobile-ip] comments on draft-ietf-mobileip-lmm-requirements-00.txt

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:36:11 +0200

Hi Carl, 

Thanks for putting this draft together. I have the 
following comments:

- Ch 1: I don't thinkthat not changing the MN was actually a goal. 
  If we can't change the MN, HA or CN then we can't do anything :)
  Or did you mean we can add to the MN but not change the existing 
  behaviour ? I don't really get this line.

- Ch 3.2.1: In the last line there seems to be an assumption that 
  LMM agents are communicating with each other. This may not 
  necessarily be true.

- ch 3.4.1: Someone proposed better text for this chapter, I think 
  it might have been James Kempf. I believe the proposal was that
  the LMM archiecture should scale linearly with the increase in 
  the number of MNs. Or soething along these line. I think this is 
  better than saying it should support a "large" number of hosts.

- ch 3.4.4: I disagree with the first paragraph. There is certainly 
  a way of avoiding this. Erik's Site prefixes draft provides us 
  means of knowing whether a CN is in the same site or not. 
  If it is then triangular routing can be avoided by using standard
  MIPv6. Granted this may cause an additional BU to be sent, but 
  the problem can certainly be avoide. I do agree with the second 
  pargraph though.

- ch 3.5.4: FAs ?

- ch 3.6: Could you elaborate on this please. I don't get it. 

- ch 3.7.1: I think this SHOULD be a SHOULD or MUST actually.
  Supporting FMIPv6 is very important and we shouldn't expect
  operators to have to choose one or the other. Both should 
  coexist.

Overall, I think the draft was well written. 

Thanks, 
Hesham