[netlmm] Re: Comments on draft-krishnan-netlmm-pmip-sel-00

Hi Jong-Hyouk,
   Thanks for the comments. Please see responses inline.

Jong-Hyouk Lee wrote:
<snip>
> However, there is no guarantee that the MN must send a RS message which 
> prior to a RA message sent from the MAG. The author should define how to 
> overcome. For instance, the MN using this mechanism has to receive only 
> the RA message responding RS message with C bit.

You are right. I had not thought about this case when I wrote the draft. 
  I need to think a bit more about this.

> 
> Also, I'm confusing with the sentance "a topologically correct prefix 
> for the link (i.e., Not the home prefix)". As I understand, it would use 
> for C bit (set 1). Is it right? If so, who is responsible for this 
> prefix? MAG? or LMA? (Actually, MAG sends RA messages in its subnet)

The topologically correct prefix is the one the MN would have got if 
there was no PMIP service on the network (i.e. the prefix of CoA). So in 
case of stateless autoconf, this would be one of the prefixes probably 
in a multicast RA sent out by the AR/MAG with the A bit set.

> 
> In the document, the author use a keyward, PMA. Does it stand for "Proxy 
> Mobility Agent"?

Yes. This was a term used in the earlier versions of the PMIP draft. 
Guess it has been removed.

> 
> For myself, I like this mechanism. There need a mobility selection 
> mechanism initiated client (MN) in the current PMIPv6 specification.

Sounds good.

Cheers
Suresh

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm