Subject: [multimob] Group management protocol operation over wireless links

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:07:55 -0500

All,
      As I mentioned in an earlier message, one of the takeaways from 
the BoF involved investigating optimizing IGMP/MLD for wireless links. 
One of the issues with this item is the vast array of underlying 
wireless technologies.  The initial task would have to focus on 
identifying those link types (or at least their shared characteristics) 
and what issues arise from the current IGMP/MLD operational model 
operating over those links.

      Ways forward could range from a BCP describing feasible 
timer/parameter settings for various link types up to proposed protocol 
changes to IGMP/MLD for operation over those link types.  One issue with 
this is the perceived reluctance on the part of primary multicast 
routing vendors to change their implementations (based on Marshall's 
comments at the BoF).

      Thoughts?  Comments?

Regards,
Brian

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:40:53 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

>       As I mentioned in an earlier message, one of the takeaways
> from the BoF involved investigating optimizing IGMP/MLD for wireless
> links. One of the issues with this item is the vast array of
> underlying wireless technologies.  The initial task would have to
> focus on identifying those link types (or at least their shared
> characteristics) and what issues arise from the current IGMP/MLD
> operational model operating over those links.

I think lack of clarification of problem statement has been making
many people confuse the working item in this group.
Regarding the use of IGMP/MLD for mobility, some problems may depend
on link types, and the others may not. But the basic problems and
requirements for host-and-router communication with IGMP/MLD in mobile
multicast would be common.
IMO, problem statement should be clarified in some place (charter or
draft). This is the first step.

The optimized timer/parameter depends on link types and link
conditions or usages. However, although the values may be different in
link types, the concepts and methods for effective host-and-router
communication with IGMP/MLD are not different from various wireless
link types. And if IGMP/MLD protocol modification or extension may
give better effectiveness, the proposed extension should be shared for
any mobile multicast on any link type.

> timer/parameter settings for various link types up to proposed
> protocol changes to IGMP/MLD for operation over those link types.
> One issue with this is the perceived reluctance on the part of
> primary multicast routing vendors to change their implementations
> (based on Marshall's comments at the BoF).

Even if we guarantee the interoperability with the proposed solutions
and the standard IGMP/MLD specifications, is there any potential
problem?

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda