Hi Antony:
Thanks to your new draft,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-dmm-framework-gap-analysis-05. I
have some comments as following.
1. I have some concern on the statement (section 6.1.2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Different deployments using the same abstract functions can be
compatible with each other if their functions use common message
formats between these functions."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I don't think it is a sutiable criterion, i.e. I don't think
that sharing same abstract functions necessary indicate different
deployments can compatible with each other.
Taking figure 6 in your draft as an example, this deployment is using the
abstract functions MR, LM and LU as indicated in the figure. Meantime,
PMIPv6(RFC[5213]) is also using same abstact functions as described in the
draft. Then, according to the criterion, these two designs should be
compatiable with each other. However, consider that, if these two designs
are deployed together (e.g. one operator deploys both two designs), and
when MN handover from your AR2 to a RFC[5213] specified MAG, I am not sure
how to keep all IPv6 prefixes which are anchored at AR1, AR2 and AR3
respectively alive. Taking figure 8 as anther example, I am not sure how
to perform location management if mobile node handovers to a RFC[5213]
specified PMIPv6 domain from the domain illustrated by this figure.
Because the RFC[5213] specified LMA or MAG doesn't have such location
management interface with the LM in figure 8.
Another concern about the "compatibility" is the analysis comparisons
"compatibility" in table 1 (section 6.3). You mark "Y" to all items. But,
for example, I am not very clear about how can HAHA be compatible with
MIPv6, and how can Multiple MRs and Distributed LM be compatible with
PMIPv6 (as explained above) and etc. May be we should not jump to a
conclusion before a carefully examine. Besides, if I am not making
mistake, the compatibility also includes the compatibility with already
exsiting end host (e.g. mobile node), right?
2. In table 1 section 6.3, why the last four analysis comparisons for
Unified framework are marked as N/A ? Besides, I think the Unified
framework is not a mobility solution, so why you put it in this comparison
table?
3. Still table 1, I think the last analysis comparisons of Multiple MRs
and Distributed LM database must be missing.
4. Still table 1, I think the last analysis comparisons item of Optimize
Route should be "except first few packets".
BR
Luowen
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
