Subject: [multimob] FW: Manual Post Requested for draft-sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:50:29 +0900

Dear multimob folks,

We have just sumitted  an update of draft-sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6-01

You can see http://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6-
01.txt

I think that there are possible solution to support PMIPv6 multicasting :
tunnel forwarding and direct routing scenarios.

However, I focused on direct routing scenario that is easy to deploy and
very efficient in terms of bandwidth usage.

The updated version includes message header of IGMP/MLD and multicast
packets at MAG, LMA to support direct routing scenario.

I hope that there are comments to enhance the document.

Best Regards,

Seil Jeon.

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Manual Post Requested for draft-sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6 

Manual Posting Requested for following Internet-Draft:

I-D Submission Tool URL:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/status.cgi?submission_id=19108

Filename:	   draft-sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6
Version:	   01
Staging URL:	   http://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-sijeon-multimob-mms-
pmip6-01.txt
Title:		   Mobile Multicasting Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6
Creation_date:	   2009-10-24
WG ID:		   Individual Submission
Number_of_pages: 12
Abstract:
To support IP-based group communication such as mobile IPTV in mobile
environment, IP multicasting is required. For minimized burden and
modification on PMIPv6 components, multicasting architecture is required to
determine where to locate the multicast router (MR) and how to operate
IGMP/MLD action in PMIPv6 network. To deploy PMIPv6 multicasting, there are
two possible approaches: tunnel forwarding and direct routing scenario.
But, this draft focuses direct routing scenario based PMIPv6 multicasting
architecture that do not require MR function within the LMA and handover
mechanism and describes IGMP/MLD operation. Our solution is easy to deploy
and save bandwidth usage. And it solves the tunnel convergence problem
without PMIPv6 modification.

Submitter: Seil Jeon ([email-masked])

Author(s):
Seil Jeon, [email-masked]
Younghan Kim, [email-masked]

Comment:
Thank you.

---

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:47:23 +0200

Dear Seil,

as discussed earlier, your work IMHO addresses a side option in 
multicast deployment throughout a PMIPv6 domain: the case of full 
multicast routing reaching to the MAGs. So multicast traffic will 
natively traverse the operator access network and MAGs are only required 
to operate as designated forwarders.

This undoubtedly is more efficient than tunneling multicast streams from 
LMAs, but requires a significantly different network set-up from the 
provider side. The discussion/decision on how to deploy should be handed 
over to the operators, I guess.

I should again point on the context transfer issue between MAGs: RFC 
5213 is very distinct about the "MN's policy profile" that carries the 
mobility context. Multicast state records are not part of it. It is also 
noteworthy that multicast records are not as simple as indicated in your 
draft. They cannot be treated within the current specs, but are subject 
to future work.

Cheers,

Thomas

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

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °