Subject: [netext] Some comments on draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-00.txt

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:40:20 +0800

Hi all,

I went through the draft and have few comments.

1)Introduction first para says

" Even though two communicating MNs might be attached to the

   same MAG or to different MAGs of the same local mobility domain,

   packets will traverse the MNs' LMA(s)."

[Mohana] Mn and CN may be better word. Bcos later in draft communication

End points are defined as MN and CN.

2)Introduction second para says

" Objectives of designing a solution for localized routing in PMIPv6

   are to specify protocol messages and enable associated protocol

   operation between PMIPv6 components to support the set up of a direct

   routing path for data packets between the MNs' MAGs without

   forwarding these packets through the MNs' LMA(s) and to maintain

   localized routing in case one or both MNs handover to a different

   MAG."

[Mohana] Here again it says that direct path between MN's MAGs.  I think
it is between Mn's MAG and CN's MAG.  

3)In the conventions and terminology section

The second bullet:

Correspondent Node (CN): Correspondent Node with or without IP

      mobility support.  The CN represents the communication peer of an

      MN, which is attached to a MAG and registered with an LMA

      according to the PMIPv6 specification.

[Mohana]The usage of "an" in front of MN and LMA should be changed to a.

4)In the conventions and terminology section

The third bullet: there is mentioning about a single PMIPv6 domain.

[Mohana] Is it MN and CN placed in single operator/provider domain
running PMIPv6?

5)In the conventions and terminology section

Fourth bullet mentions about IDs

[Mohana] Is it only ID? What other information stored.  What are these
IDs?

Perhaps a description will be good.

6)In section 3.1 general observation section 1st para

" Following the architecture of PMIPv6, rather entities of the network

   infrastructure are dedicated to perform signaling to set up a more

   direct route between an MN and a CN."

[Mohana] I am not sure the meaning of this.  Does it mean that when PMIP
is present, RO needs to be established by using signaling between
network entities? Perhaps a rewording is useful.

7)In section 3.1 general observation section last paragraph

[Mohana] It is mentioned two benefits of loacl MAG routing.There is
mentioning about lower cost, lower delay, lower packet loss.  But clear
indication as to the two benefits was not present.

8) In section 3.2 all mentioning is about "PMIPv6 domain".  

[Mohana] I do not want to start the discussion again. But, isn't it
better to say what this PMIPv6 domain is. MN and CN in same operator
domain or something like that. Bcos there is another section on roaming
which is different from this.

9) [Mohana]Again in section 3.2, there is mentioning about some race
issue in multiple LMA

Case, when there is handoff.  But no clear description of such issue is
highlighted. A small description will be good.

10) In section 3.2, the local MAG issues are highlighted into cases(case
A11, A..) and again some issues (multiple LMA, handoff in multiple LMA)
are captured in bullet form.  I am not sure whether there are any
overlap in text here.

11)Section on IPv4 considerations. I think the current text is fine.  It
is not too complex and highlights how local MAG routing canbe done when
there is IPv4 HoA or IPv4 transport. 

BR,

Mohana