Hi JC,
>> In your new draft draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-00, you >> already admit that D-GW is a MAG and LMA combined. Actually it is also >> very much like HA in draft-sarikaya-dmm-dmipv6-00. >> >> Because of the MN in Fig.1 configures PrefA (this one is normal PMIPv6) >> and >> >> then again configures PrefB (and keeps using PrefA) which is where >> the trick is. >> >> PMIPv6 is network-based and this is achieved with having two distinct >> entities of MAG and LMA. Then you don't need much from MN in such an >> architecture with such assumptions. > > [JCZ] Agree So you agree with this but .. > >> >> However if you change these basic assumptions and have D-GW and make >> it a single entity mobility protocol then you can not claim it is >> network-based any more because it simply is not. >> > > [JCZ] I think that Carlos refers to the fact that the changes are on the > network side and we have not introduced any MN functionality. Hence, this is > a network-based approach. > >> I think that there are similar concerns on draft-seite-dmm-dma-00 and >> draft-liebsch-mext-dmm-nat-phl (I have not checked this one yet). >> >> What is interesting is that with D-GW becoming like HA, all these >> protocols become very similar to the distributed MIPv6 protocol. > > [JCZ] Again, we are not introducing MN changes in the draft, so I don't think > it maps to a client-MIP approach. > I challenge you to remove all MN related text (I think Wen pointed out almost all of them) from the draft and say that considerations in Section 7 of RFC 5213 apply. How about that? Behcet _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
