Subject: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:24:07 -0400

Hi Folks,
   Here is a summary of the multimob meeting we had at IETF69. It is a 
subjective view of what happened at the meeting. Let me know if you have 
any issues, comments, or corrections.

multimob@IETF69 Summary
=======================
The goal of the bar BOF was to identify the problems that need to be 
solved in the near future. The secondary goal of the bar BOF was to 
identify the working groups in the IETF that can do the work (if any). 
The attendance for the bar BOF was as expected (27 people) covering 
researchers, implementers and operators. The problem statements were 
presented. The presentations were followed, and sometimes interrupted, 
by related discussions.

Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed

* Remote Subscription
* Bidirectional tunneling
* Agent based

Some of the people in the meeting believed that the problems to be 
solved need to be defined by the operator (The majority,I believe). 
There were other vocal critics who believed that this is not the right 
approach to follow since the operators typically lag behind in multicast.

After the ensuing discussions, it became clear that the problems that 
need to be solved are the following

* Receiver mobility
   Issues due to latency
   * join latency - can be fixed with link layer indicators
   * leave latency - much harder to fix, may require changes to MLD,PIM

* SSM issues with mobility

Problems which are out of scope for now

* Sender mobility

These problems can theoretically be solved by extensions to existing 
unicast mobility protocols like {,f,h,p}mipv6 and extensions to 
multicast protocols like MLD and pmip6.

Conclusion
==========
We need to put in further effort to investigate if these fall under the 
charter of current working groups or not. We also need to come up with a 
collective list of requirements to work on. Further work will be done on 
the mailing list.

Cheers
Suresh

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:54:57 -0400

On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>   Here is a summary of the multimob meeting we had at IETF69. It is  
> a subjective view of what happened at the meeting. Let me know if  
> you have any issues, comments, or corrections.
>
> multimob@IETF69 Summary
> =======================
> The goal of the bar BOF was to identify the problems that need to  
> be solved in the near future. The secondary goal of the bar BOF was  
> to identify the working groups in the IETF that can do the work (if  
> any). The attendance for the bar BOF was as expected (27 people)  
> covering researchers, implementers and operators. The problem  
> statements were presented. The presentations were followed, and  
> sometimes interrupted, by related discussions.
>
>

I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as is.  
There would have to be changes to support
SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither should  
be that difficult in IPv6.

If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me know.

Regards
Marshall

> There were other vocal critics who believed that this is not the  
> right approach to follow since the operators typically lag behind  
> in multicast.
>
> After the ensuing discussions, it became clear that the problems  
> that need to be solved are the following
>
> * Receiver mobility
>   Issues due to latency
> These problems can theoretically be solved by extensions to  
> existing unicast mobility protocols like {,f,h,p}mipv6 and  
> extensions to multicast protocols like MLD and pmip6.
>
> Conclusion
> ==========
> We need to put in further effort to investigate if these fall under  
> the charter of current working groups or not. We also need to come  
> up with a collective list of requirements to work on. Further work  
> will be done on the mailing list.
>
>
> Cheers
> Suresh
>
>

---

From: Thomas C Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:24:13 -0500

Hi Marshall,

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as is. There 
> would have to be changes to support
> SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither should be 
> that difficult in IPv6.
> 
This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM we already 
started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we 
started keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting!

And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way 
further down there ...

For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easily be 
extended to scale beyond domains.

Anyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic) 
hybrid approaches, cf.
http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf

Cheers,

thomas
-- 

° Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt
° HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik
° University of Applied Sciences
° Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg
° Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875-8157
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt