Subject: [NSIS] Section 3 of Mobility Applicability Draft

From: "Shivanajay Marwaha" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:05:20 +0800

Dear Sung-Hyuck, Seong-Ho, Mobility Applicabilty Draft Authors and other
NSIS WG members, 
 
Some comments/suggestions on section 3 in the NSIS mobility
applicability draft. 
 
Suggestion 1:- 
 
Following three sub-topics are not adequately covered in the main body
and some elaboration regarding the problem should be provided or it
should be in the open-issue list. 
 
(i) Sub-section 3.1 (11):- "Key exchange:- When a handover happens,
nodes
on the new path must be able to verify the signaling messages of the
MN, and vice versa.  " 
(ii) Sub-section 3.2.3 (1):- "Update of firewall rules and NAT bindings"

(iii) Sub-section 3.2.3  (2) "Re-use of NAT/FW-NSLP's old state" 
 
-----------------------------------------------------
 
Suggestion 2:- 
 
Current Text -  In Section 3.1 (3) -> " For example, Mobile IP may use
the routing
headers to define explicit routes, which diverts the traffic from an
expected path."
 
Comment/Suggestion - Kindly elaborate how this is done ->  MIP does not
require special
support at the intermediate routers. Any address change or
tunnelling, is done at the MIP supported nodes for eg. Home Agent or
the MN. So we would like to seek clarfication on how MIP affects
explicit routes?
 
-----------------------------------------------------
 
Suggestion 3:- 
 
Section 3.1  (6) Upstream State Update vs. Downstream State
Update:- 
 
Current Text -  " Since the upstream and downstream paths are likely not
to be the 
same, the upstream and downstream CRNs may not coincide, either.
Therefore, the State Update needs to be handled independently for  
the upstream and the downstream, including the discovery of  upstream
and downstream CRNs."
 
Comment/Suggestion - Does the above "upstream and downstream" flow refer
to data or
signalling? As such in path coupled signalling, there shouldn't be
any difference between upstream and downstream paths. So, if it is
directly addressed there may be an issue, if it is hop-hop address,
there may not be any issue as they should follow the same path.
 
-------------------------------------------------------
 
Suggestion 4:- 
 
Following 3 sub-topics do not seem to be problems, rather they seem
more like requirements:-
 
(i) Sub-section 3.1 (10) "Identification of the crossover node" - seems
to be a requirement derived from the previous point (9).
(ii) Sub-section 3.2.1.  (1) "Interfaces between Mobile IP and NSIS
protocols"
(iii) Sub-section 3.2.1 (2)  "Localized State Update"
 
Regards,
Shivanajay 
(On Behalf of Takako Sanda, Toyoki Ue and Cheng Hong)

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