Hi Behcet, > -----Original Message----- > From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:39 PM > To: Zuniga, Juan Carlos > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] review of draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring- > 00 > > 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?
[JCZ] RFC 5213 does have non-normative MN-related text in multiple sections (beyond section 7), which is needed to understand the PMIPv6 concept. The same applies to our draft, which builds on top of RFC 5213 and the NETEXT extensions. I believe it would be redundant to repeat the same considerations. > > Behcet _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
