Subject: [netlmm] Comments on draft-jaehwoon-netlmm-flush-00

From: "Jong-Hyouk Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:45:05 +0900

Dear colleagues.

I have some questions on draft-jaehwoon-netlmm-flush-00. How does the flush
mechanism solve the packet ordering problem? Using the flush message? It
seems that you don't actually define how to operate MAG2 when MAG2 gets the
Flush message from MAG1.

Also, this mechanism would cause some delay during RO setup procedure in
case of the Flush message from MAG1 to MAG2 is lost in the transmission.
That will make a weak pint of RO procedure, so that you should define how to
be tolerant of this.

This draft is just publised in June and the usage of Flush message is
introduced only in case of "One relevant LMA in the topology". Would you
extend this mechanism into the case of "Two relevant LMAs" in the next
document? I think that "two relevant LMAs" case would be an ordering problem
as well. :)

In section 3 (Protocol Description), "LMA1" should be changed to "LMA" in
Figure 1.

Cheers.

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://www.hurryon.org
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm