Subject: [multimob] PMIPv6 routing optimizations to avoid tunnel convergence problem

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:01:54 +0200

Hi,

In the last IETF meeting we had a good discussion on the different
approaches that can be adopted to tackle the tunnel convergence problem.
The consensus of the room was that no single approach solves all
problems:

- Direct routing approaches are well suited for getting content that is
locally available/generated at the visited domain where the MN is
camping, or to get to multicast groups without the traffic traversing
the LMA back at the home domain (kind-of offloading approach).

- Dedicated multicast anchor alike solutions are well suited for getting
content that is only available, or preferred to be accessed via the LMA
at the home network.

- Additionally, there is also the case where the multicast content
provider is a third party, nor the home or the visitor provider (e.g.,
NBA serving a basketball match to telco operators -- well, maybe this is
not the best example due to the NBA lockout :P ). In this case, other
factors -- such as commercial agreements, costs, etc. -- are to be
mainly considered.

Based on that, it was suggested that we might want to go for a flexible
solution that allows integrating these two main approaches, in such a
way that different traffic may get routed differently, depending on
several aspects (traffic characteristics/availability at the local
domain, user profile, operator deployment decisions -- as operators may
decide not to deploy direct & dedicated multicast anchor solutions
everywhere, etc.). The right network entity to implement that decision
about what approach to follow seems to be the MAG (the decision itself
can come from another network entity, this needs more study).

From our understanding of what was discussed during the meeting, our
proposed next step is to analyze most likely deployment use
cases/scenarios, and evaluate the pros&cons of each of the potential
solution families described above.

Comments on the proposed approach?

Thanks,

Juan Carlos, Akbar, Luis and Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67