Hi Juan Carlos, authors, As I understand, this draft combines the two cases for providing multicast in PMIPv6, one with mLMA and the other is locally available multicast or so-called direct routing. However as I read the draft, I notice there are problems in the way the second case is covered.
Section 3.3.2 and 4.3.2 seem to refer to the case of locally available multicast data. But I don't understand why then in Section 3.3.2 which covers the first case, you also have MAG as Multicast Router case? I think also that Section 4 should be more clear on why MAG as MLD Proxy is also needed, i.e. for multicast data that is not locally available? If it is not clarified the current text reads as if MAG as Multicast Router is also a PMIPv6 multicast routing solution, i.e. brings some confusion in regards to RFC 6224. My suggested solution is to remove Section 3.3.2. What do you think? Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
