Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear Joel,

thanks a lot for your valuable comments. Please find below a revised Abstract and Introduction.
I marked new text as follows: /+ new or revised text +/

Please let me know if the proposed revision makes the scope of the document clearer.

---
Abstract

  Proxy Mobile IPv6 is the IETF standard for network-based mobility
  management.  In Proxy Mobile IPv6, mobile nodes are topologically
  anchored at a Local Mobility Anchor, which forwards all data for
  registered mobile nodes. /+ The setup and maintenance of localized
  routing, which allows forwarding of data packets between two mobile
  nodes' Mobility Access Gateways without involvement of their Local
  Mobility Anchor in forwarding, is not considered. +/ This document
  describes the problem space of localized routing in Proxy Mobile
  IPv6.

---1.  Introduction

  The IETF has specified Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] as the
  base protocol for network-based localized mobility management
  (NetLMM).  The scope of the base protocol covers the set up and
  maintenance of a tunnel between an MN's Mobile Access Gateway (MAG)
  and its selected Local Mobility Anchor (LMA).  Data packets will
  always traverse the MN's MAG and its LMA, irrespective of the
  location of the MN's remote communication endpoint.  Even though an
  MN may be attached to the same or a different MAG as its
  Correspondent Node (CN) within the same provider domain, packets
  being associated with their communication will traverse the MN's and
  the CN's LMA /+, which can be located topologically far away from the
  MN's and the CN's MAG or even in a separate provider domain.+/
  [RFC5213] addresses the need to enable local routing of traffic
  between two nodes being attached to the same MAG, but does not
  specify the complete procedure to establish such localized routing
  state on the shared MAG.

  The NetLMM Extensions (NetExt) Working Group has an objective to
  design a solution for localized routing in PMIPv6.  This includes the
  specification of protocol messages and associated protocol operation
  between PMIPv6 components to support the setup of a direct routing
  path for data packets between the MN's and the CN's MAG /+, both
  receiving mobility service according to the PMIPv6 protocol
  [RFC5213] +/.  As a result of localized routing, these packets will be
  forwarded between the two associated MAGs without traversing the MN's
  and the CN's LMA(s).  In case one or both nodes hand over to a
  different MAG, the localized routing protocol maintains the localized
  routing path.  Relevant protocol interfaces may include the interface
  between associated MAGs, between a MAG and an LMA as well as between
  LMAs. /+ Out of scope of the NetExt solution and this problem statement
  is the setup of localized routing with CNs, which are not registered
  with a PMIPv6 network. +/

  This document analyzes and discusses the problem space of using
  always the default route through two communicating mobile nodes'
  local mobility anchors.  Furthermore, the problem space of enabling
  localized routing in PMIPv6 is analyzed and described, while
  different communication and mobility scenarios are taken into
  account. /+ Based on the analysis, a list of key functional
  requirements is provided, serving as input to the design of the
  protocol solution.+/


Best regards,
Marco










Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-05
    PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 7-March-2011
IETF LC End Date: 14-March-2011
IESG Telechat date: 17-March-2011

Summary: This document is close to ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Moderate issues:
The abstract is misleading. It reads as if the problem is allowing communication between a PMIP mobile node and a correspondent, wherever the correspondent is. Even the introduction is somewhat hazy on its scope, sometimes referring to the generalized notion of correspondent node, and sometimes seeming to mean just the sub-case of two nodes, both attached to MAGs, in the same domain. It is only in the conventions and terminology that "Localized Routing" is actually defined in a way to make clear what problem is of interest.


Minor issues:
In the introduction, the word "problem space" is used to describe what is being covered in this document. However, the document includes sections such as section 4, Functional Requirements for Localized Routing which are not about the problem, but rather about what mechanisms are needed for a solution. Rather than argue about what belongs in this document, or the document name, I would suggest clarifying in the introduction what this document is actually doing. While the arguments at the end of section 3.1 sound plausible, they are, as far as I can tell, quite controversial in the mobile industry. I have heard speakers make exactly opposite assertions about several of these claims. As such, I think this paragraph ought to be toned down. I found myself confused by the text in section 5. I think that the problem is that I assume that a "Local Mobility Agent" will be in the same domain as the Mobile Access Gateway handling the client the LMA is supporting (otherwise it sems not to be local.) Given the discussion of Roaming, and the way it is constructed, this appears not to be the case. If there is no such domain coupling requirement, then could you please add a note to that effect somewhere early in the document (possibly in the introduction along with a better description of the problem.)

Nits/editorial comments:

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]