Dear Jong-Hyuok Lee, Thank you for the valuable comments. Please see my inline responses.
1) We suppose that both MN and CN are in the same domain in the S-PMIP and SD-PMIP. So, all of the nodes in SD-PMIP have the same prefix. 2) In the draft, we didn't consider the handover scenario yet. However, we will revise the draft to include the handover scenarios within this month. Best Regards, Ji-In Kim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ph.D student, Communications Protocols Lab, Kyungpook National University. 1370 Sankyuk-dong, Buk-gu, Daegu, Korea. E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 82-53-940-8608 C.P: 82-10-9371-1324 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jong-Hyouk Lee > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:36 AM > To: [email protected]; mext > Subject: [MEXT] Comments on "draft-sjkoh-mext-pmip-dmc-03" > > Dear authors, > > I read the draft "draft-sjkoh-mext-pmip-dmc-03" and have comments/questions: > > How is an MN's handover handled in SD-PMIP? For instance: 1) It's not clear how a prefix of the MN is provided; and 2) it is also not clear from the draft how ongoing packets (destined to the MN or sent from the > MN) are handled during handovers. > > Thanks. > > -- > IMARA Team, INRIA, France > Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random > > #email: jong-hyouk.lee (at) inria.fr || hurryon (at) gmail.com > #webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
