Hi Carlos
I have reviewed your draft, and I have two questions to your draft as
following:
First, let's consider this scenario. Initially, MN is attached to D-GW1
and has a session#1 (anchored at D-GW1). When moving to D-GW2, MN starts
another session#2 (session#1 keeps on going). As per your draft, D-GW2
should simulate mndgw1 and mndgw2 and establish a tunnel with D-GW1 for
this MN. MN continues to move to D-GW3. Then D-GW3 should simulate mndgw1,
mndgw2 and mndgw3 and maintains two forwarding tunnels between itself and
D-GW1, D-GW2 for the MN. And MN could continue to move again and
again.....
PMIP requires only one MAG and only one PMIP tunnel for one MN. But it
seems that, your draft requires, for one MN, multiple MAGs (i.e. those
mndgw1, mndgw2 and mndgw3) and multiple tunnels for one MN. If MN keeps on
moving, the situation will become worse. I mean, maybe dozens of MAGs and
tunnels are needed for this MN. In this case, performance of your D-GW
will be a big issue. Of course, you can limited the HNPes one MN can
maintain (e.g. 3 HNPes per MN, then only 3 D-GWs could be involved at
most), but to me, it is very hard to determine the threshold to satisfy
every single MN. Otherwise, network should have a mechanism for
terminating IP addresses to release some D-GWs. But how to determine an IP
address (HNP) is not used by a MN is also a challenge.
Second, in figure 2 of your draft, D-GW2 simulates two logic GWs (i.e.
mn1dgw1 and mn1dgw2), and MN is attached to both two logic GWs. Does this
indicate MN should maintain tow separated logic link with mn1dgw1 and
mn1dgw2 respectively? If it does, then how can you ensure that MN will
establish an additional logic link with mn1dgw2 when MN moves from D-GW1
to D-GW2?
What do you think?
BR
Luowen
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
