Opened 13 years ago

Closed 13 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

#36 closed (fixed)

Editorial changes for PS draft from Phil Eardley

Reported by: kempf@… Owned by: kempf@…
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: nohost-ps Severity:
Keywords: PS draft Cc: netlmm@…

Description

Section 1.1 Access network definition - I had trouble with this, eg the reference to 'specialised routing protocol' (which, from emails, I think is not a reference to LMM protocol), eg the presence of ordinary routers seems to be only related to some 'specialised routing protocols'. How about: <An Access Network consists of the following components: At the 'outer' edge, wireless &/or wired access points and access routers. Access Routers (ARs) handle the last IP hop to a mobile node (MN), whilst access points are intermediate lower layer devices. At the 'inner' edge, access network gateways (ANGs). They form the boundary between the access network and the rest of the Internet, and shield the latter from specialised protocols (for instance localised mobility management protocols) running in the access network. In between, internal access network routers.

Localized Mobility Management definition - I think this needs a bit of refining. It says 3 times that signalling is confined to the access network, surely once is enough? Also, IP mobility management isn't defined, I assume the intention is that LMM is at the IP layer. How about: < Localized Mobility Management is a generic term for any IP protocol that maintains the IP connectivity and reachability of a mobile node when it moves, and whose signalling is confined to a single access network.>

Global Mobility Protocol -> Global Mobility Management Protocol [just for consistency with LMM protocol]

In this definition, please can you delete the second sentence. ['The global mobility protocol may also..']. It's making the definition very long and the material is repeated in section 2.

Section 2.0 The first sentence seems to introduce another definition for LMM. Why introduce the term "access network aggregation router"? why not just stick with "access network gateway" which was in the definition of access network? What does the phrase "although in this case, there is no specialized routing protocol" mean? Are you referring to the specific case in Fig 1? Suggested solution: delete the whole of the first paragraph; replace AggR by ANG in the following para / pic

Re-phrase the start of the global mob para: Global mobility protocols allow a mobile node to maintain reachability when the MN's globally routable IP address changes, for example when the MN moves between ARs on different ANs. It does this by updating...

Section 4 'Having an interoperable...' para mentions anchor points, which assumes a particular type of LMM protocol. Suggested re-phrase: < Having an interoperable, standardized localized mobility management protocol that is scalable to topologically large networks, but requires no host stack involvement for localized mobility management is a highly desirable solution. While some mobile node involvement is necessary and expected for generic mobility functions such as movement detection and to inform the access router about mobile node movement, no specific mobile node to network protocol will be required for localized mobility management itself. When a mobile node moves from one access router to another, the access routers send a LMM protocol message, and the LMM protocol ensures that subsequent packets destined for the MN are routed to the new AR.>

Advantage 3 - this assumes a particular type of LMM protocol. Suggested re-phrase: <Compared with Solution 3, a LMM protocol can achieve better scalability and faster stabilisation after a handover. For example, a LMM protocol may only involve a few routers. >

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by kempf@…

  • Status changed from new to assigned

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by kempf@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from assigned to closed

Changes entered except for the last two. The architecture for NETLMM is part of the charter, and the text in the problem statement draft was lifted from the charter, so we have an archival record in one of the WG's documents about the architecture.

jak

comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by anonymous

  • Milestone milestone2 deleted

Milestone milestone2 deleted

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.