Subject: Re: [multimob] Multicast deployment in PMIPv6

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:43:25 +0800

Hi,Brian and all

	The answer to my last email by myself is the baseline deployment of multicast in PMIPv6 is really needed to be done. Based on current what can be offered about multicast by current PMIPv6 , we can get a very good start point. And then we can just decide which and how about new features need to be appended. It seems can make us get the consensus continually.In fact, just like RFC3775, it didn't specify the requirement on the how about the function to achieve the multicast handling goal in home agent,MLD Router or MLD proxy.Similiarly, we are also don't need to do that in the baseline doc. Or specify MLD Router as the default choice. Within the baseline scope, the MAG no need to do anything help Mobile node, but if we care about the efficient problem , then it is the first choice to do for us to improve the performance from network side.And the traffic between mobile node and MAG can be save effectively. And handover can become a result of that part. Meanwhile, the traffic between MAG and home agent can also be designed to optimaze on traffic cost and/or management control consideration.
	On summary,by this way, we can gather our consensus together and step by step.How about it?

	Best Rgds,
Thanks

John.zhao
======= 2008-12-09 14:51:00 You have said:=======

>Hi,Brian and all
>	IMHO, what is the scope of the discussion about the deployment is
>needed to be defined or suggested. Without the comparison of the solution
>between multicast with MIPv6 or PMIPv6, how to decide if it need to be done
>again? I remember this kind of discussion has been already existed in Dublin
>. So my suggestion is a assumption is very important and can be treated as
>our startup point for next step. So what is our current common idea? None or
>something? And in which scope and level , the deployment should be
>discussed?
>
>	Best Rgds,
>Thanks
>
>John.zhao
>
>-----邮件原件-----
>All,
>      As I mentioned in an earlier message, one of the takeaways from 
>the BoF is that there is some confusion of how multicast can be deployed 
>in the current PMIPv6 architecture.  Some people argued that multicast 
>in PMIPv6 already exists using the base MIPv6 protocol.  Others argued 
>that either the MIPv6 multicast extensions can't be used or that they 
>were insufficient.
>      From those arguments, I would see a work item being the 
>investigation of what the baseline deployment of multicast in PMIPv6 
>would look like.  This would preclude (for the time being) optimizations 
>such as different approaches to supporting LMA to MAG multicast transit. 
>  I view this task as requiring a tight involvement with the NETLMM 
>working group in order to ensure complete understanding of their 
>evolving PMIPv6 specification.
>
>      Thoughts?  Comments?
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>_______________________________________________
>multimob mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>multimob mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

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