Subject: Re: [multimob] Comments ondraft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

From: "von Hugo, Dirk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:58:12 +0100

Dear all,
from my point of view the requirements deal with minimization of
bandwidth consumption in terms of signalling effort and path lengths
(reduce amount of hops, overcome traffic replication for every
individual receiver), which is currently reflected in the draft as   
R11 - Multicast mobility SHOULD minimize transport costs on the
forwarding link, as well as any additional overhead on the multicast
delivery path
 
Surely this could be elaborated towards efficient resource usage e.g. in
terms of differentiating traffic for different service requirements
(QoS).
 
Best regards
Dirk

  _____  

Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im
Auftrag von John.zhao
Gesendet: Montag, 1. Dezember 2008 10:09
An: 'Behcet Sarikaya'; [email-masked]; 'Suresh Krishnan'
Betreff: Re: [multimob] Comments
ondraft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

Hi,Behcet and all
 
    My two cents.
     As my understanding,we need optimize the traffics between MAG and
LMA and also include the tunnel between old MAG and new MAG. 
 
    Best Rgds
Thanks,

john.zhao

Hello all,
  At Multimob BoF last week it became clear that PMIPv6 requirements
draft concentrated (probably) too much on the operating requirements and
failed to state some simple traffic requirements.
  I remember these traffic requirements were already stated in the pre
BoF meeting we had in Dublin.
  Any comments? Suresh?

Regards,

Behcet

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

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:08:16 -0500

Hi all,
   From many of the comments raised at the BOF, my main observation is 
that there was insufficient description of the intended deployment 
model(s) for multicast with PMIP. I think we need to put this down on 
paper before we start listing the problems out. Without a common 
understanding of the scenario it will be hard to agree on the problems.

Cheers
Suresh

---

From: Niklas Neumann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:12:23 +0100

Hy everybody,

are we satisfied with the charter proposal and the problem statement? It 
was my impression that a lot of people didn't agree with some of the 
assumptions made there. For example, LMA vs. MAG as multicast endpoints.

So maybe we should revise those documents and be a little more 
conservative about the assumptions and statements made there. Something 
along the lines of examining current multicast behavior in PMIP with the 
goal of working on a best-practice guide or optimizations where needed.

At least the discussion during the BOF showed, that the specifications 
are not clear about multicast in PMIP and clarifications are needed.

Best regards
   Niklas

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Niklas Neumann - University of Goettingen, Institute of Computer Science
http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~nneuman1/
Tel: +49 551 39-172053
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:07:44 -0500

Niklas,
      I have two take aways from the BoF held in Minneapolis.  I will 
start two separate threads on the mailing list to discuss them, but at 
the high level they are:

1. Rather than focus on optimizations (i.e., LMA to MAG), focus on the 
basics needed to deploy multicast in the current PMIPv6 architecture.

2. Identify whether there is interest in investigating the performance 
of IGMP/MLD over wireless networks.

Regards,
Brian

Niklas Neumann wrote:
>> draft concentrated (probably) too much on the operating requirements 
>> and failed to state some simple traffic requirements.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:00:26 +0100

Hi all,

The requirement draft allows different multicast deployment models for PMIP. The problem is that the document is focusing also on operator requirements for IPTV deployment and it made confusion during boF meeting. So, I agree we should clarify basics and focus on the problem we are trying to solve with PMIP. A separate document, as suggested by Suresh, could help. I guess work over this document could start with Brian's threads, right?

Regards,
Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la
> part de Brian Haberman
> Envoyé : lundi 8 décembre 2008 21:08
> À : Niklas Neumann
> Cc : [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: [multimob] Commentson draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-
> 01.txt
> 
> Niklas,