Subject: [netlmm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:00:02 -0800 (PST)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network-based Localized Mobility Management Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues
	Author(s)       : G. Giaretta
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-02.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2009-02-23

The scenarios where Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Mobile IPv6
(MIPv6) protocols are both deployed in a network require some
analysis and considerations.  This document describes all identified
possible scenarios, which require an interaction between PMIPv6 and
MIPv6 and discusses all issues related to these scenarios.  Solutions
and reccomendations to enable these scenarios are also described.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:30:39 +0900

Hi, all.

Here are some comments on Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios
and related issues (draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-02.txt).

In Section 3.2 and 4.2 (Issues related to Scenario B), you mentioned as
follows.

For the mobile node which has the MIPv6 stack and wants to use MIPv6 service
(using its own mobility signaling), the MAG must offer MIPv6 service for the
mobile node. Then, the solutions for this left out in the document.

Does it mean that Mobility Service Selection needs for Scenario B? If then,
please mention the related documents (As I know there are some related
documents even if some of them has been expired).

In Section 3.3 (page 11), IMO, the sentence (Whereas Binding Update messages
... sent by MAGs) needs to rephrase as follows.

In MIPv6, Binding Update messages that are sent by the mobile node to the
home agent are ordered by the sequence numbers. The other side, in PMIP,
Proxy Binding Update messages that are sent by the MAG to the LMA are
ordered by a timestamp option.

In Section 3.3 (page 11), please rewrite the sentence (... but will still
have MIPv6 active ...) as follows.

... but will still have MIPv6 active Binding Cache Entry ...

In Section 4.1 (page 12), please consider the sentences as follows.

... the scenario described in Figure 1.
In Figure 5, the MN has been moved from an old MAG ...

I know this document has been merged from several documents. However, please
unite terminologies for enhancing readability. For instance, 'mobile node'
or 'MN' and 'Binding Cache Entry' or 'BCE'.

Moreover, there are some some typographical errors.
page 10: s/in MIPv6/In MIPv6
page 11: s/PMIP home domain/PMIPv6 dome domain
page 12: s/LMA hss/LMA has
page 17: s/like ot/like to
Finally, why do you guys cite the old version of PMIPv6 base document
(draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-01.txt) in Section 5 ?

Cheers.

2009/2/24 <[email-masked]>

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

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://cv.hurryon.org