Subject: Re: [netlmm] The term LMA

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:59:56 -0700 (PDT)

Absolutely.
I think we should get back to the original terminology and use PMA instead of MAG as well.
However, now so many documents use the terminology and it is going to be almost impossible to get back. Probably it does not matter, so long as the protocol is not called netlmm DT protocol 

Regards,

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 11:13:57 PM
Subject: [netlmm] The term LMA

Hello,

The terminology that we have in the current PMIP6 I-D
<draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-00.txt> w.r.t LMA is not entirely
accurate. 

LMA definition as per the I-D is:
"
      Local Mobility Anchor is the home agent for the mobile node in the
      Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.  It is the topological anchor point for
      the mobile node's home prefix and is the entity that manages the
      mobile node's reachability state.  It is important to understand
      that 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 protocol solution being discussed focuses on localized
mobility. However this protocol also works equally well for the global
mobility of the host. The term local mobility agent gives the
perception that this entity is responsible only for local mobility and
global mobility (if applicable) would be managed by a MIP6 HA. While
this deployment model is feasible, it is equally feasible to manage
global mobility of the host with the same protocol (as long as certain
assumptions about Proxy MIP capability in the access router that a
host attaches to exist).

IMO, we should change the LMA term to what it really is, an HA. If the
HA is used in the context of localized mobility, it MAY be refered to
as an LMA. But if it is providing global mobility, then it is just an
HA. And since there really is no difference in the functionality of
these entities, it would be better to just refer to it as HA.
A PMIP6 HA = MIP6 HA + DSMIP6 capabilities + PMIP6 enhancements

-Raj

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

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

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT)

True.
I was talking about the architecture for which hierarchical mobile IPv6 was defined, a global HA and many local MAPs.

----- Original Message ----
From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:15:20 AM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] The term LMA

  The advantage of PMIP is that we do not need to have a separate HA as in HMIP.  
 
=> Just for the record, this is not true. HMIP doesn't need an HA to be present. 
 
Hesham
 
 T  his is obvious in PMIP spec. I believe we do not need a separate document to explain this.
  So maybe we should close this thread in favor of LMA.
 
Regards,
 
--behcet