Subject: [netlmm] Review of draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01

From: Alfredo Matos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:06:46 +0000

Hi Folks and Authors,

Reading through draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01, there is a latent issue
that i do not see how the drafts addresses it.

The draft assumes that there can be multiple PMIP Clients within the
same LMD. Furthermore, context transfer between MAGs is just an
optimization from what I gather.

Therefore, if a MN moves from MAG1 to MAG2, through a reactive handover
without any context transfer, how can MAG2 discover the correct PMIP
Client to contact (since there can be many) without contacting MAG1,
because it might not know the origin of the MN due to the nature of the
handover. In this case MAG2 might contact another PMIP Client and cause
a GMD handover, breaking the local mobility. Is the context transfer a
MUST ?

Best regards,

Alfredo Matos

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

---

From: "Kalyanasundaram Suresh-CSK090" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:17:22 +0800

Hi Alfredo, 

Thanks for your question. You're right that if the PMIP client identity
cannot be uniquely resolved by the new MAG, then an additional procedure
- either context transfer (e.g. as described in Appendix D), or some
sort of query procedure, would be required. However, note that in the
case where the new MAG can uniquely resolve the address of the PMIP
client for the MN, context transfer is not required. This is clearly
true when there is only one PMIP client in the LMD. Even if there are
multiple PMIP clients in the domain, the PMIP client could be chosen
based e.g. on a hash of the MN identifier, so that all MAGs can
automatically determine the PMIP client identity just based on the MN
identifier. Such a method would also enable some load-balancing across
the multiple PMIP clients.

My expectation is that in any system where the handover performance and
other criteria are stringent enough that a NetLMM-type solution is
needed, context transfer and data forwarding between MAGs will be put in
place to enable good performance for handovers.

Regards,
Suresh

-----Original Message-----
From: Alfredo Matos [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] Review of draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01

Hi Folks and Authors,

Best regards,

Alfredo Matos

---

From: Alfredo Matos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:12:34 +0000

> place to enable good performance for handovers.

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for your reply. My take on this is that any solution for context
transfer is a handover optimization and should not be required for the
base protocol. What I would suggest is that you add some text to the
draft making Context Transfer completely optional. Your solution of a
hash based on the MN_ID seems like a good initial solution to find the
PMIP Client. Or at least say that there will be a mechanism in place to
derive the PMIP Client ID from the node ID, if this is not supplied by
any other means.

regards,

Alfredo

---

From: "Kalyanasundaram Suresh-CSK090" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:28:10 +0800

Hi Alfredo,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We'll incorporate your
suggestion of making context transfer optional in possible future
versions of our draft.  We will say that there will be a fallback scheme
to identify the PMIP client, if there is no context transfer mechanism
that can be used for transferring the identity of the PMIP client. 

Regards,
Suresh 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alfredo Matos [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 3:43 PM
To: Kalyanasundaram Suresh-CSK090
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Review of draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01

On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 12:17 +0800, Kalyanasundaram Suresh-CSK090 wrote:
> Hi Alfredo,
> 
> Thanks for your question. You're right that if the PMIP client 
> identity cannot be uniquely resolved by the new MAG, then an 
> additional procedure

> My expectation is that in any system where the handover performance 
> and other criteria are stringent enough that a NetLMM-type solution is

> needed, context transfer and data forwarding between MAGs will be put 
> in place to enable good performance for handovers.
> 
> Regards,
> Suresh

Hi Suresh,

regards,

Alfredo