Hi Juan Carlos,
I was just browsing over the ropt draft and would like to add some
comments that relate to my previous comments given a year ago (see below).
The status of the current document:
* Section 3.5 "PMIPv6 enhancements" is now out, so the section 3 has
returned to informational content.
* IPv4 compatibility: You have added a section that simply points to
RFC 6224 - however, I don't think situations are exactly comparable. RFC
6224 relies on the GRE-tunnel infrastructure MN <-> MAG <-> LMA. This is
not true for the MTMA, which does not have MN-specific state. I don't
think it's a big issue, but currently the draft is not sound.
* Section 4.1. "Extensions to Binding Update List Data Structure" is
completely unclear ... seems not informational.
* Section 4.3 - Direct routing remains nebulous and severely lacks
content. I should pointer to the discussion of direct routing for
sources http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-02
- using the different PIM protocols in a mobility regime is by no means
so trivial.
* Section 5. defines new "Dynamic IP Multicast Selector Option" ...
this is out of scope for informational documents.
Best regards,
Thomas
On 09.12.2011 18:59, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
Hi all,
some feedback:
In general, I support adopting this document as a WG item - it
presents two valid deployment scenarios. But I guess, the intended
status should be informational, as this is just presenting deployment
advice (I know, currently the document does more ...).
We've been discussing the two solutions (Multicast-Tunnelendpoint,
direct routing) for quite a while and we should come to conclusions ...
on the current document I only had a very brief look (apologies!).
Here are three comments:
1.) On the quick run, I cannot see what Section 3.5 "PMIPv6
enhancements" really is needed for. I know, I should re-read this (no
time now), still the MTM approach should work without protocol
modifications, I guess.
2.) There should be a section / solution on IPv4 compatibility
(including address collisions ...) as needed for PMIPv6.
3.) The direct routing section (4) is still rather superficial. It
should explain in detail how to deploy protocols, e.g., PIM-SM in the
presence of these PMIP tunnels ... just to avoid the confusion that has
been evident on this list since Quebec ;) .
That's only for a quick feedback,
Thomas
On 08.12.2011 14:53, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hello all,
There was consensus on the tunnel convergence solution draft in
Taipei.
This mail is to confirm the consensus.
This document can be found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt
This mail starts a WG adoption call on this draft.
The intended status for this document is proposed standard.
If adopted, the draft will be named:
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-tunnel-convergence.
Please your comments by December 15, 2011.
Chairs
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
