Hi Behcet, On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 11:13 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Behcet, > > > > On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 11:06 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> Hi Carlos, > >> > >> You say in various places in your draft that your protocol is PMIPv6-based. > >> I wonder how it could be? > > > > More accurately, we could say that the solution is network-based. PMIPv6 > > is just one network-based protocol and the solution is specified in the > > draft for PMIPv6. Not sure what your doubt comes from... > > > > If it is network based then I don't understand why MN has a lot to do > in your protocol as Wen has pointed out?
AS stated in the draft, the solution is completely network-nased. The MN is a legacy IPv6 node, has nothing to do in our protocol. > > > >> RFC 5213 in Section 7.1 says: > >> Once the address configuration is complete, the mobile node can > >> continue to use this address configuration as long as it is attached > >> to the network that is in the scope of that Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. > >> > >> I wonder if MN moved out of PMIPv6 domain in your case? > > > > No, it has not. One of the common assumptions for DMM is that the MN > > does not need address continuity for the whole duration the MN is > > attached to the domain. The idea is to enforce new communications to > > make use of the address anchored closer to where the MN is attached to, > > and to deprecate addresses anchored elsewhere (so they are not needed > > once active communications using them are done). > > > > I guess what you understand from DMM is to put LMA functionality into > MAG and lump the two together into one. That's why MN needs to get an > address in the new MAG/LMA. And all other requirements coming out of > this huge change in PMIPv6. > > However, if you look into IETF work, in such cases MN needs to use > MIPv6 as in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-07 I think I'm not following your rationale to jump from our draft to the MN needing to use MIPv6. Thanks, Carlos > > > Regards, > > Behcet -- Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/ GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
