Subject: [multimob] FW: New Version Notification for draft-sijeon-multimob-direct-routing-pmip6-00

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:30:44 +0900

Hello, multimob folks, 

We submitted revised draft for direct routing architecture.This draft is
derived and revised from [I-D.sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6] as re-chartered
MULTIMOB WG description.

We gave a simple comparison with base solution and dedicated LMA approach.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sijeon-multimob-direct-routing-
pmip6/?include_text=1

Best Regards,

Seil Jeon

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 7:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-sijeon-multimob-direct-routing-
pmip6-00 

A new version of I-D, draft-sijeon-multimob-direct-routing-pmip6-00.txt has
been successfully submitted by Seil Jeon and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-sijeon-multimob-direct-routing-pmip6
Revision:	 00
Title:		 PMIPv6 Multicasting Support using Native Infrastructure
Creation_date:	 2011-03-07
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 12

Abstract:
To support IP multicasting in PMIPv6 domain, [I-D.ietf-multimob- pmipv6-
base-solution] has been determined as a base solution. This solution
requires all the LMA to forward multicast packets to MAG via
PMIPv6 tunnel. This approach creates a tunnel convergence problem. To
resolve the issue, the current MULTIMOB WG charter is trying to draw a
solution about how to separate multicasting routing from a mobility anchor.
As an effective solution, we propose the direct routing approach that makes
the direct connection between MAG and multicast router. The advantages of
the proposed direct routing solution are compared with the base solution
and dedicated LMA approach. This draft is derived and revised from [I-
D.sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6] as re-chartered MULTIMOB WG description.

The IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:34:51 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Seil,
  I read your draft. I am confused about Fig. 1. You have one LMA and one MR 
there. As you explained the tunnel convergence problem occurs due to multiple 
LMAs.

Could there be multiple MRs?
Why could MR be not collocated with LMA?
How does a multicast data packet sent by MR go to MN? You mentioned native 
multicasting infrastructure as a requirement.

Regards,

Behcet

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

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:48:42 +0900

Hi Behcet,

Please see below.

----

Q. Could there be multiple MRs?

A. As you know, the tunnel convergence problem occurs due to tunnel-based
multicasting transmission delivered by multiple LMAs.

    In direct routing architecture, no tunnels are employed.

    And a MLD client (proxy also) is connected to one MR as you can simply
imagine native multicasting architecture.

----

Q. Why could MR be not collocated with LMA?

A. Actually, depending on operator's deployment, an MR may be collocated
with LMA.

    The main concept of direct routing is to separate multicasting function
on LMA and to reuse native multicasting infrastructure.

    By doing so, tunnel convergence issue is completely resolved and the
burden due to multicasting operation can also be reduced. 

    And as I said before, an MLD client in general is not connected with
multiple MRs.

    The tunnel convergence issue handled in MULTIMOB results from special
PMIPv6 architecture.

----

Q. How does a multicast data packet sent by MR go to MN? You mentioned
native multicasting infrastructure as a requirement.

A. A MAG (MLD proxy) joins to the MR, so the MR sends the multicast packet
to the MAG.

    The MAG knows where to forward multicast packets from its downstream
interface. So, the multicast packet is forwarded to MN with multicast
address.

----

Best regards,

Seil Jeon

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:35 AM
To: Seil Jeon; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [multimob] FW: New Version Notification for draft-sijeon-
multimob-direct-routing-pmip6-00

Hi Seil,
  I read your draft. I am confused about Fig. 1. You have one LMA and one
MR there. As you explained the tunnel convergence problem occurs due to
multiple LMAs.

Regards,

Behcet

> Hello, multimob folks,
> 
> We submitted revised draft for direct routing  architecture.This draft 
> is derived and revised from  [I-D.sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6] as 
> re-chartered MULTIMOB WG  description.
> 
> A new version of I-D,  
> draft-sijeon-multimob-direct-routing-pmip6-00.txt has been successfully
submitted by Seil Jeon and posted to the IETF  repository.
> To support IP multicasting  in PMIPv6 domain, [I-D.ietf-multimob- 
> pmipv6- base-solution] has been  determined as a base solution. This 
> solution requires all the LMA to forward  multicast packets to MAG via
> resolve the issue, the current MULTIMOB WG charter is  trying to draw 
> a solution about how to separate multicasting routing from a  mobility
anchor.
> As an effective solution, we propose the direct routing  approach that 
> makes the direct connection between MAG and multicast router.  The 
> advantages of the proposed direct routing solution are compared with 
> the  base solution and dedicated LMA approach. This draft is derived 
> and revised  from [I- D.sijeon-multimob-mms-pmip6] as re-chartered
MULTIMOB WG  description.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:46:16 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Seil,

> interface. So, the multicast  packet is forwarded to MN with multicast

This is kind of confusing because MAG and LMA are not on the same link in 
general and your Fig. 1 shows MR at the same level as LMA. However, it seems 
that you require MR to be on the same link as MAG?

Over all, I think that the direct routing corresponds to what is stated in 
Section 11.3.4 in Mobile IPv6 

draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt

In order to receive packets sent to some multicast group, a mobile
   node must join that multicast group.  One method, in which a mobile
   node MAY join the group, is via a (local) multicast router on the
   foreign link being visited.  In this case, the mobile node MUST use
   its care-of address and MUST NOT use the Home Address destination
   option when sending MLD packets.

where MAG is the local multicast router and there is MR upstream.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:58:35 +0900

Hi Behcet,

Please see below [Seil]

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:46 AM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [multimob] FW: New Version Notification for draft-sijeon-

Hi Seil,

> A. A MAG (MLD proxy) joins to the MR, so the MR sends the  multicast 
> packet to the MAG.
> 
>     The MAG knows where to  forward multicast packets from its 
> downstream interface. So, the multicast  packet is forwarded to MN 
> with multicast address.
> 

This is kind of confusing because MAG and LMA are not on the same link in
general and your Fig. 1 shows MR at the same level as LMA. However, it
seems that you require MR to be on the same link as MAG?

=> [Seil]: This is a reference architecture to see association between
entities. And, it does not mean MR is at the same level as LMA.
              Direct routing solution is based on flat architecture that is
different from MAG-LMA of hierarchical association.

=> [Seil]: In MIPv6, access router is assumed to be multicast router.
However, in direct routing solution, a MAG is not multicast router.
              A MAG has mld proxy function to avoid complexity in MAG.

Regards,

Seil Jeon