Subject: [netlmm] Revised text for LMA definition

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:35:29 -0500

The discussion regarding the use of the term LMA indicated that the
terms local and global mobility depend on the context and hence cannot
really be generalized.

My initial proposal was to refer to the LMA as an HA. I am not sure if
there was a concrete conclusion to be derived from the discussion. I
think that the term LMA is context dependent.

Below is a proposal for the term LMA in the PMIP6 I-D
[draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6]:

Local Mobility Anchor/HA

The term LMA and HA are interchangeable and depend on the context in
which the protocol is used. When the protocol specified in this
document is used for local mobility management of a host, i.e within
the scope of an access network or administrative domain, the term LMA
is used or applicable. When the protocol is used for global mobility
management of a host, the entity is essentially a Home Agent and
should be refered to as such.

The local mobility anchor is the entity that maintains the binding
between the prefix assigned to an MN and the Proxy-CoA. The LMA has
the functional capabilities of a home agent as defined in Mobile IPv6
base specification [RFC-3775] and with the additional required
capabilities for supporting Proxy Mobile IPv6 as defined in this
specification. The prefix assigned to an MN is a local prefix.

In the context of Proxy MIP6 being used for global mobility the HA is
the entity that maintains the binding between the prefix (or address)
assigned to an MN and the proxy-CoA (at the MAG). This HA has the
functional capability of the HA as per RFC3775 and proxy MIP6 features
specified in this document. The prefix assigned to the MN when used
for global mobility MAY be the MNs home-link prefix causing home-link
emulation from the MNs perspective.

Thoughts?

-Raj

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm