Subject: [multimob] Multimob BOF

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:57:40 -0400

I have had trouble deciding what to do with this BOF request.

There's clearly energy and people behind this. However, it has been 
unclear to me how how well the ideas match what real-life mobile 
networks and implementors need. In particular, when talking to Proxy MIP 
developers, there's a feeling that a document describing the use of 
multicast in PMIP would be useful. But at the same time they are very 
much against complex optimization proposals. There's also a question of 
whether the specifications, if any, should be developed in a 
free-standing WG or if they should simply be a part of the existing WGs 
such as NETLMM or NETEXT. In other words, there's a significant 
disagreement about the ambition level.

In any case, I have decided to grant a BOF because I don't want to 
prevent the discussion from happening. I would like to request that the 
BOF be devoted to the high level questions, e.g., should we do nothing, 
develop an informational document explaining the use of multicast in 
PMIP, or develop an advanced optimization framework and significant 
protocol extensions. I think it can be taken as a starting point that we 
do not have enough documentation about the use of multicast with PMIP -- 
just grep for "multicast" in RFC 5213 :-)

Jari

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:02:26 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Jari,
  Thanks for approving the BoF.
As you know Multimob has two sets of protocols to work on: Mobility protocols (currently PMIP) and group management protocols.
I think that all the evaluation so far has been on PMIP side. 
We have many people in Multimob who are coming from the group management protocol side and they believe some work in indeed needed.

Is your recommendation to not to concentrate on the group management aspect at the BoF?

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:57:40 AM
Subject: [multimob] Multimob BOF

There's clearly energy and people behind this. However, it has been unclear to me how how well the ideas match what real-life mobile networks and implementors need. In particular, when talking to Proxy MIP developers, there's a feeling that a document describing the use of multicast in PMIP would be useful. But at the same time they are very much against complex optimization proposals. There's also a question of whether the specifications, if any, should be developed in a free-standing WG or if they should simply be a part of the existing WGs such as NETLMM or NETEXT. In other words, there's a significant disagreement about the ambition level.

In any case, I have decided to grant a BOF because I don't want to prevent the discussion from happening. I would like to request that the BOF be devoted to the high level questions, e.g., should we do nothing, develop an informational document explaining the use of multicast in PMIP, or develop an advanced optimization framework and significant protocol extensions. I think it can be taken as a starting point that we do not have enough documentation about the use of multicast with PMIP -- just grep for "multicast" in RFC 5213 :-)

Jari

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:07:35 -0400

> Is your recommendation to not to concentrate on the group management aspect at the BoF?

No -- I only had time to dig into the PMIP side of the proposal. I do 
not have a specific recommendation on the group management side.

Jari

---

From: Liu Hui <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:06:22 +0800

Hi Jari,

I  understand your concern about practicability of the output of multimob.
This is also the concern of mine and also many other people who are
interested in this work.  The group may absorb vendors and operators for
they usually have practical eyes.  Fortunately,  we have some of them
already involved and interested in the work.   

Personally I think the aim of the group should not be merely the extension
of the PMIP (or other MIP) protocol to support multicast, but should be
extending the multicast enabled network to support mobile users.  For the
former we only enhance one or two protocols, while for the latter we enhance
the capabilty of the network and versatile the service delivery.   Even
though the two protocol suites, multicast and mobile IP, still do not see
their success,  the intergration of them may generate more than we can
expect.  

I agree with you that intitial informational architecture or other related
document should be prepared.  But I disgree with you that they should be
limited to PMIP.  Even though it turns out that one MIP protocol eventually
wipe out all other ones,  this MIP protocol should be only one part of
mobile multicast architecture.    

The above is my personal thinking and suggestions.  Please give a
consideration on it.

Best Regards,

Liu Hui 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:08 PM
> To: Behcet Sarikaya
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [multimob] Multimob BOF
> 
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> > Hi Jari,
> > As you know Multimob has two sets of protocols to work on: 
> Mobility protocols (currently PMIP) and group management protocols.
> > We have many people in Multimob who are coming from the 
> group management protocol side and they believe some work in 
> indeed needed.
> >
> No -- I only had time to dig into the PMIP side of the 
> proposal. I do not have a specific recommendation on the 
> group management side.
> 
> Jari
>