Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:42:06 +0000

Suresh/I-D authors,

Is there a resolution to this issue? Can you please propose text that the
WG can agree on and we will then move forward.

-Raj

On 9/15/11 1:58 PM, "ext Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>>11.
>>>   The tunnel between the MAGs is assumed to be established by means
>>>   outside the scope of this document.
>>  
>>It would be useful to at least provide some examples of the tunnel
>>establishment between MAGs from a completeness perspective. It looks
>>like handwaving at the moment.
>
>I agree with you that it is handwavy, but I am not sure what to add
>here. People wanted all kinds of tunnels here, IPv6, IPv4, GRE, USP,
>IPsec etc. with either manual or dynamic creation. If you want a
>specific scenario, I could add it here but if I remember correctly we
>did not even manage to get consensus among the authors.

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:11:03 -0700

Hi Suresh,

The PFMIPv6 spec had to address a similar issue - tunnel between MAGs.
Perhaps you can embellish the relevant text from there.

Thanks.

-Rajeev

On 10/12/11 9:42 AM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:03:25 -0400

Hi Chairs,
  Version -06 of the draft has been posted with the tunneling
information that was the last open item from Raj's review.

Thanks
Suresh