Subject: Re: Multiple Levels of LMM agents (was: RE: [mobile-ip] Revised L ocalized Mobility Management Requirement s)

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:12:56 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Phil,

>> There is, of course, one problem here. The LMM agent doesn't necessarily have 
to
>> be at the access router, in fact, many deployment situations would instead 
have
>> it at the border router for purposes of reducing the frequency of globally
>> visible CoA changes. Otherwise, there is no benefit for the mobile node.
>
>That seems odd to me James.  I guess I would not classify it as a "local"
>method then?  Eitherway, there is no loss of generality here, exact same
>technique can apply to border routers, why not?
>
>

I think I understand what you are getting at. Let me summarize:

If the LMM is at the AR, when the mobile node moves, it quickly signals the CoA 
change to new AR/LMM, and the AR/LMM leisurely signals it back to the various 
CNs and HA. During the period in which the CNs and HA still know the mobile by
it's old CoA, the old LMM at the old AR is tunnelling to the new LMM.
So, in essence, the LMM becomes kind of like the IPv4 FA. Is that it?

I think this is not what most people in this thread would think of as
being LMM. The two currently proposed schemes use an agent back in
the network. And, you are right, it is not really localized at all.
I think that name was chosen so as not to prejudice the discussion
toward either of the two techniques.

		jak

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:22:08 -0700

I second what James has just said here...

Theo

UCL/ Mobile Systems

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:27:29 -0500

> So, in essence, the LMM becomes kind of like the IPv4 FA. Is that it?

If the LMM "follows" the mobile i.e. is virtual, it can "move" (by transferring its
context (using SeaMoby CT) and by setting up temporary tunnels) to any
LMM hosting router in any possible architecture.  So it does not need to reside
in an AR or a BR.  In fact the same method can work the mixes of both network
types and it works irrespective of crossing administrative domains or
routing domains (subnets).  I guess I would argue that the LMM becomes
like an OBAST agent but I won't go down that rat hole.
> toward either of the two techniques.

I guess I thought I was suggesting a "third" alternative.

Thanks,

Phil