From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Jan 3 08:49:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F095521F859D for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:49:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D-xZak1gp15e for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658A121F8592 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by ghbg18 with SMTP id g18so6567620ghb.31 for ; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:49:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+WnEBE+dewVjpQEXKeznboWei/Vr5ykGqyN0HIbnd/c=; b=R7XJS4nbF7NgjBkGODlWVSAdsbggV+0acJ8U0TVJcYH3gU3A2aSTJYxd82fapH+vBN 58CwxvmwM9SSROFbnKZdmuVRIybRtDfGpIx3yFTd3TFJtTaI7wB8wS+HNXdqaXykHehD fG+fnLNm67sxU0J09T090eEly8b4Sydkw+9OY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.8.3 with SMTP id l3mr10208948ani.31.1325609361951; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:49:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.63.170 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:49:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:49:21 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [multimob] WG adoption call on draft-schmidt-multimob-pmipv6-source-00 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:49:24 -0000 Hi all, WG adoption call has ended. The authors, please submit your draft as WG draft with the intended status as standards track. Regards, Behcet & Stig From isoto@dit.upm.es Wed Jan 4 02:51:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4248E21F86BB for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 02:51:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnJoSQaVYcA3 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 02:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.dit.upm.es (mail.dit.upm.es [IPv6:2001:720:1500:42:215:c5ff:fef6:86e4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCC521F8688 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 02:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from turing.dit.upm.es (turing6.dit.upm.es [IPv6:2001:720:1500:60:250:56ff:fea2:2d3a]) by mail.dit.upm.es (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q04Apo2j005804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:51:50 +0100 Received: from [138.4.6.133] (rpv3.dit.upm.es [138.4.6.133]) by turing.dit.upm.es (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q04ApooL005186; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:51:50 +0100 Message-ID: <4F042F46.7020005@dit.upm.es> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:51:50 +0100 From: Ignacio Soto User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: multimob@ietf.org, sarikaya@ieee.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [multimob] WG adoption call on draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:56:24 -0000 Dear all, I support the adoption of draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt as WG document. Best regards, Ignacio El 08/12/2011 21:53, Behcet Sarikaya escribió: > Hello all, > There was consensus on the tunnel convergence solution draft in Taipei. > This mail is to confirm the consensus. > > > This document can be found at: > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt > > This mail starts a WG adoption call on this draft. > > The intended status for this document is proposed standard. > If adopted, the draft will be named: > > draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-tunnel-convergence. > > Please your comments by December 15, 2011. > > > Chairs > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jan 9 21:06:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D8121F852C; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:06:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukN8aMx5qDxZ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E812D21F8552; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:06:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120110050617.16722.96082.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:06:17 -0800 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-00.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:06:37 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Multicast Mobility Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PM= IPv6) Domains Author(s) : Thomas C. Schmidt Shuai Gao Hong-Ke Zhang Matthias Waehlisch Filename : draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-00.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2012-01-09 Multicast communication can be enabled in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains via the Local Mobility Anchors by deploying MLD Proxy functions at Mobile Access Gateways, via a direct traffic distribution within an ISP's access network, or by selective route optimization schemes. This document describes the support of mobile multicast senders in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains for all three scenarios. Mobile sources always remain agnostic of multicast mobility operations. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-00.txt From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Mon Jan 9 21:14:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EB521F8476 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:14:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kAS0XCtiMWq3 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1B621F8474 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggnr5 with SMTP id r5so69166ggn.31 for ; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:14:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=FRiDq62XBsW8TLkX6jVVh4ATmJHNEI8Mx0MnC3cuoGI=; b=JBUNZGV51keAOSX9acXU9DiglHlCJGeLPK/ePUga/OkZiCzVN/+w++5WHHaz/Wg2er +YpotVhBQ+jPrmbJoPvJn/9mGbIEY13/xuFeu0bwbkfR+AK8iaMEQ2kxFkx8OfUUHGdg EvHQ5xurbi0uJvgmL1IZht9M30U8Z+1cbR8oY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.116.129 with SMTP id g1mr24107437yhh.107.1326172470516; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.175.231 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:14:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:14:30 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [multimob] WG adoption call on draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:14:39 -0000 Dear all, The call has ended. The authors, please submit your draft as WG draft. Intended status is informational. Regards, Behcet From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 00:08:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A0821F8609; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zzRQzOYOcmmh; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE6B21F854F; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120117080827.15785.77976.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:08:27 -0800 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:08:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Multicast Mobility Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Tuning the Behavior of IGMP and MLD for Routers in Mobil= e and Wireless Networks Author(s) : Hitoshi Asaeda Hui Liu Qin Wu Filename : draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2012-01-17 IGMP and MLD are the protocols used by hosts and multicast routers to exchange their IP multicast group memberships with each other. This document describes the ways of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 protocol optimization for mobility, and aims to become a guideline for tuning of IGMPv3/ MLDv2 Queries and timer and counter values. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03.= txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03.t= xt From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Jan 19 08:32:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECAB121F8554 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:32:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jnkGHfhfuM3Q for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D19321F853C for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:32:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so78517yen.31 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:32:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oVEiGpsbMcKTKyz1EVME+DlfhEsKMlDLN7QNVMppikQ=; b=u7RtlQ5Sog+3C50IYlSGTiK3cKSR2iHdIqu0WQ+BDGug3XqwbYHr1YEz7NTvnl/4V9 P8Otxa6gKRmDo1QgkDV6lxzBQYr+OlUAhtpdS5FmQPr5NXvnRhxtNPDAcvH+5Tub15Oh B0FfVI5hwWX2Shvfnsuxy920XOeUVpXXBabBw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.155.65 with SMTP id i41mr39172325yhk.124.1326990721659; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:32:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.72.131 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:32:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:32:01 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [multimob] PMIP MC handover -- some thoughts X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:32:03 -0000 Hi all, It is time to discuss our fast handover charter item and the proposed approaches. I copied below what Marco wrote on the list on Sept. 7, 2011. To Marco's points, I am adding one more as the last one below. I think that there is consensus on these points. - Why FHO-like forwarding between MAGs is beneficial for multicast? It puts assumptions on inter-MAG operation and introduces overhead which should be justified. - Does performance really benefit from forwarding? What's a typical use cas= e: Video broadcast, for example. Streaming applications may have some buffered packets on the player. How does packet drop during handover impact QoE compared to FHO-like forwarded MC packets? I guess they have to be buffered at the target MAG before they can be delivered to the MN, so latency is introduced whereas only packet drop is reduced. - Is packet re-ordering an issue (forwarded packets between MAGs vs direct packets)? Well, RTP may help on the player if it=92s used. Or is re-order= ing resolved on the MAG by means of scheduled delivery to the MN? - Maybe CTX of multicast context is sufficient. Proactive CTX may help. Whereas the benefit of reactive CTX needs to be compared against the performance of the Multimob base approach for PMIPv6 - If forwarding between MAGs is adopted, we may consider it optional - If forwarding between MAGs is not really beneficial, what is the right way for CTX? 2 approaches are being discussed: inter-MAG CTX (as per RFC4067) and CTX via LMA. Can we assume efficient paths between MAGs in operator networks? CTX via LMA puts less assumptions on SAs between MAGs and link characteristics between MAGs. In particular beneficial when LMA stores some multicast context. - Transferring context assumes that multicast state can be established at the proxy/querier without receiving corresponding join messages from MNs. This is an extension to MLD. Regards, Behcet From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Tue Jan 31 08:25:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5587E21F8513 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:25:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QSqgxs4espRd for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail53.telekom.de (tcmail53.telekom.de [217.5.214.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F3321F8501 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from he111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.23]) by tcmail51.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 31 Jan 2012 17:25:40 +0100 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.228]) by HE111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:25:40 +0100 From: To: , Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:25:40 +0100 Thread-Topic: [multimob] PMIP MC handover -- some thoughts Thread-Index: AczWx+M3GEx+72QoQbG1vwsuoPyEPQJZ1j0w Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27423D8247@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [multimob] PMIP MC handover -- some thoughts X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:25:44 -0000 Hi Behcet, I think you have already summarized some comments from our discussion in Se= ptember (e.g. by Luis). Good point added regarding required MLD extension .= .. Thanks! I'll try to add my thoughts - hopefully not doubling too much from last yea= r's arguments - please see below: Best regards Dirk Von: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftra= g von Behcet Sarikaya Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2012 17:32 An: multimob@ietf.org Betreff: [multimob] PMIP MC handover -- some thoughts Hi all, It is time to discuss our fast handover charter item and the proposed approaches. I copied below what Marco wrote on the list on Sept. 7, 2011. To Marco's points, I am adding one more as the last one below. I think that there is consensus on these points. - Why FHO-like forwarding between MAGs is beneficial for multicast? It puts assumptions on inter-MAG operation and introduces overhead which should be justified. > Dirk: Right - the expected performance improvement is not for free in ter= ms of complexity and protocol extensions (incl. MLD). Thus we have to argue= with dedicated services which benefit from disruption-free mobile multicas= t receiption and may be asked for in large amount so that multicast will b= e economically viable - Does performance really benefit from forwarding? What's a typical use cas= e: Video broadcast, for example. Streaming applications may have some buffered packets on the player. How does packet drop during handover impact QoE compared to FHO-like forwarded MC packets? I guess they have to be buffered at the target MAG before they can be delivered to the MN, so latency is introduced whereas only packet drop is reduced. > Dirk: Agreed - the buffered content is received with delay, but since in = pure multicast it would be lost to the mobile receiver otherwise, this is a= gain. Thanks to increased processing power and storage capacity at handhelds the = streamed IP Video is either already buffered at the terminal so a medium de= lay might be unnoticeable to the consumer (or he is anyway storing the vide= o content for later consumption since on the move he cannot focus on viewin= g). But other broad- or multicast services like large scale synchronisation (so= cial network data, anti virus sw updates, newsfeed distribution, ...) deman= d mainly error-free delivery rather than real-time character - Is packet re-ordering an issue (forwarded packets between MAGs vs direct packets)? Well, RTP may help on the player if it's used. Or is re-orderin= g resolved on the MAG by means of scheduled delivery to the MN? > Dirk: Yes, and if the actual serving MAG is controling forwarding from pr= evious one the direct packets will be correspondingly postponed - Maybe CTX of multicast context is sufficient. Proactive CTX may help. Whereas the benefit of reactive CTX needs to be compared against the performance of the Multimob base approach for PMIPv6 > Dirk: Again this depends on the application/use case - base Multimob does= not care for lost packets during handover, right? - If forwarding between MAGs is adopted, we may consider it optional > Dirk: I tend to agree with Luis - subscription forwarding is more importa= nt than content forwarding - If forwarding between MAGs is not really beneficial, what is the right way for CTX? 2 approaches are being discussed: inter-MAG CTX (as per RFC4067) and CTX via LMA. Can we assume efficient paths between MAGs in operator networks? CTX via LMA puts less assumptions on SAs between MAGs and link characteristics between MAGs. In particular beneficial when LMA stores some multicast context. > Dirk: agree that LMA-MAG can already be assumed as established whereas fo= r inter-MAG tunnel we need to set up. But if MAGs are owned by same operato= r and we think of a future scenario: LMAs may be quite centralized to save = deployment and operational costs - so the delay and burden of processing al= l multicast contexts might be great. On the other hand future base stations= (e.g. 3GPPs LTE-Advanced, but perhaps also 802.11..?) need direct links to= synchronize and exchange link state information anyway (e.g. for Coordinat= ed multi-point (CoMP), Multicell MIMO) so they could be re-used ... - Transferring context assumes that multicast state can be established at the proxy/querier without receiving corresponding join messages from MNs. This is an extension to MLD. > Dirk: I am afraid you are right - unless it is possible for the pMAG or = LMA to act on behalf the MN and kind of 'spoof the MN join message' ...? ;-= ) Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Jan 31 12:44:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F7A11E80EB for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:44:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8n8bBNxASsuP for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:44:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F62A21F84B8 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:44:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so298100yen.31 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:44:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zki1bQHeHMDarVtf/KoAaTKtiD86g+Nw1ge9x+aGjms=; b=TChvvRTEplHk7k7D6x+VgSHiVseglI2YeqpmwnXuCvByEgiuzIF7kjnyQUDFWLuMUi fJ7NxmEdc+8jeLoplTdvkMfGK4srR/Z7geTI5owTnTaq8LQyrrxWihwUAQD6fZTS40M6 Rh7SpJn5D4KGQwoZYs5sEMbJfHURDWaoYqoGE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.161.103 with SMTP id v67mr36720919yhk.87.1328042659643; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:44:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.108.165 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:44:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:19 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03.txt X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:44:21 -0000 Hi Folks, We feel that this draft is ready for WGLC. If you have any concerns, please speak up during this week. Regards, Chairs From liu.juan45@zte.com.cn Tue Jan 31 18:52:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6CE21F846C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:52:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.838 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NYODAEHGCitT for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E936D21F8469 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 56690900245117; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:27:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 5467.900245117; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:52:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q112qEMQ069966 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:52:14 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from liu.juan45@zte.com.cn) To: multimob@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: liu.juan45@zte.com.cn Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:52:08 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-01 10:52:15, Serialize complete at 2012-02-01 10:52:15 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000FA77C48257997_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q112qEMQ069966 Subject: [multimob] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro-00 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:52:36 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 000FA77C48257997_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Dear all, a new draft proposing localized routing for PMIP multicast has been submitted as contribution for Multimob working group. The draft can be found following this link: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro/ Any comments are very welcomed. Best regards, Juan Liu -------- Original Message -------- A new version of I-D, draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro-00.txt has been successfully submitted by juan liu and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro Revision: 00 Title: Routes Optimization for PMIPv6 Multicast Creation date: 2012-01-31 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 17 Abstract: To support IP multicasting in PMIPv6 domain, MULTIMOB WG has issued several proposals including the base solution,dedicated schemes and direct routing which requires all communications to go through the local mobility anchor(LMA),the dedicated server and the native multicasting infrastructure ,respectively. As this can be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows multicast source attached to the same or different mobile access gateways(MAG) with mobile node to send multicast data by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways without any dedicated devices or dependence of the native multicasting infrastructure. This document describes multicast routes optimazition mechanisms for localized routing.The MAG and the LMA are the mobility entities defined in the PMIPv6 protocol and act as PIM-SM routers. The IETF Secretariat -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 000FA77C48257997_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Dear all,
a new draft proposing localized routing for PMIP multicast has been submitted as contribution for Multimob working group.

The draft can be found following this link:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro/

Any comments are very welcomed.

Best regards,

Juan Liu


-------- Original Message --------
A new version of I-D, draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro-00.txt has been successfully submitted by juan liu and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:                  draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro
Revision:                  00
Title:                                   Routes Optimization for PMIPv6 Multicast
Creation date:                  2012-01-31
WG ID:                                   Individual Submission
Number of pages: 17

Abstract:
  To support IP multicasting in PMIPv6 domain, MULTIMOB WG has issued
  several proposals including the base solution,dedicated schemes and
  direct routing which requires all communications to go through the
  local mobility anchor(LMA),the dedicated server and the native
  multicasting infrastructure ,respectively.  As this can be
  suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows multicast source attached
  to the same or different mobile access gateways(MAG) with mobile node
  to send multicast data by using localized forwarding or a direct
  tunnel between the gateways without any dedicated devices or
  dependence of the native multicasting infrastructure.  This document
  describes multicast routes optimazition mechanisms for localized
  routing.The MAG and the LMA are the mobility entities defined in the
  PMIPv6 protocol and act as PIM-SM routers.

                                                                                 


The IETF Secretariat
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 000FA77C48257997_=--