Hi Guru, I have looked subject and have a few comments:
1. The draft does mention a few times "without triangle routing in the data path". But section 7.4: "As a result, packets may be natively forwarded to non-LISP sites by an ITR (the return path will through a PITR, however, since the packet flow will be non-LISP site to LISP site)." Do I understand right that it is exactly "triangle routing"? Encapsulation in both directions would be needed if you insist on "without triangle routing" or you could delete the requirement. 2. All discussions are in the style that it is "handover", not "roaming". "Roaming" has been mentioned 28 times in the draft but it is exactly what was *not* implemented. I mean: what if the next RLOC would be from a completely different administrative domain? What if not just link would be switched but Carrier would be switched? IMHO: "roaming" is a mandatory case for the word "Mobile" in the title of the draft. Please, at least rename "roaming" to "handover" till roaming would be proposed. It is better to be accurate with Mobile terminology. 3. It has been mentioned that there is a requirement for "multi-homing", but it has not been discussed at all later. IMHO: an additional section is needed to explain how "TCP connections to stay alive while roaming" - probably "multi-homing" should help with this. [cid:image001.png@01D3A7DF.E7D86320] Best Regards Eduard Vasilenko Senior Architect Europe Standardization & Industry Development Department Tel: +7(985) 910-1105, +7(916) 800-5506
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
