Subject: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-00

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:00:54 -0500

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