Subject: [SAM] IETF-71 meeting for SAM RG

From: "John Buford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:53:40 -0500

We plan to hold a meeting of the SAM RG at IETF-71 in Philadelphia.

When the exact date of the meeting is available, we will post to the mail
list.

Please post requests for agenda items to the mail list.

Thank you,

John Buford & Jeremy Mineweaser
_______________________________________________
SAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sam

---

From: Eiichi Muramoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:34:45 +0900

John-san

We would like to have presentation below at the BoF of SAM in IETF71

- Tutorial of SAM-TK ( by Nobuo Kawaguchi of Nagoya Univ.)
- ALM API for Topology Management and 
  Network Layers Transparent Multimedia Streaming 
  (by Lim Boon Ping of Panasonic Kuala Lumpur Lab)
- XCAST 1.0 and 2.0 ( by Yuji -UG- Imai of WIDE )

I think 15 min for each is enough.

Best Regards,
Eiichi Muramoto 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:53:40 -0500

-- 
Eiichi Muramoto <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Forest.Lin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 21:43:04 +0800

Hi,  I want to ask u a question , that is , when the sam-tk project can release the first version on http://sourceforge.net/projects/samtk ? thx! 

Forest.Lin
2008-01-03

发件人： Eiichi Muramoto
发送时间： 2008-01-03 15:35:14
收件人： [email-masked]
抄送： [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题： Re: [SAM] IETF-71 meeting for SAM RG

John-san

Best Regards,
Eiichi Muramoto 

-- 
Eiichi Muramoto  <[email-masked] >

.

---

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:52:35 +0100

Dear all,

As a RG member I have one, probably more general question: where we are
now and where we are going within the RG? In the past few months (since
IETF#69) the technical discussion was somewhat dormant in the mailing
list, nor there is an active ID on SAM, therefore I have been wondering
this question - or more specifically, a set of subquetions below:

http://www.samrg.org states that
"The Scalable Adaptive Multicast (SAM) Research Group invetigates
multicast protocols including application layer multicast (ALM), overlay
multicast (OM), native multicast, and hybrid techniques with the goal of
greater scalabality and adaptability in terms of numbers of multicast
groups and network resources. It also provides input for standardization
efforts within the IETF."
"The Scalable Adaptive Multicast (SAM) Research Group is chartered to
explore and research techniques which improve multicast performance with
respect to dimensions such as number of groups, dynamics of group
membership, dynamics of the network topology, and network resource
constraints. The RG will investigate approaches based on application
layer multicast (ALM), overlay multicast (OM), and native IP multicast,
as well as hybrid approaches."

--> This indicates that, analysis of existing non-IP multicast
approaches would be a GOAL. I have somehow sensed this as possible RG
item but no team work being taken nor active draft at least from what I
know for now.

"A key design consideration is the placement of multicast state
information along the multicast path, including packet headers, end
hosts, and network nodes, where placement may be determined adaptively."

--> This implies that the placement of MC state information could be
dynamic, which does not tell what we should do.

"In SAM architectures, new protocols are expected to coexist and
integrate with native IP multicast protocols while offering more
flexible deployment options and scaling to support a greater number of
simultaneous multicast groups. Alternative technologies such as
end-system multicast and overlay multicast have been demonstrated, but
these mechanisms must be integrated into a unified architecture and
operational design."

--> this implies a new (or called "unified") architecture will be
defined within the RG. Maybe I am missing something, but where is an
architecture or prototypical idea?

"Among the challenges to be addressed are: multicasting in topologies
with concatenated VPNs, such as the Global Information Grid (GIG);
ability to incorporate QoS mechanisms while retaining scalability;
integration with network- and application-layer security mechanisms; and
adaptation schemes which consider group-related factors, such as group
size, number of sources, membership dynamics, sensitivity to delay,
amount of state, state update rate, application data rate, and other
application-specific parameters, as well as network-related factors,
such as dynamics of topology, carrying capacity, and connectivity."
--> This looks to me we aim to define evaluation metrics and make a
systematic evaluation for various existing (non-IP) multicast proposals?

"Methods will be explored for group formation and discovery that scale
to large numbers of groups, accommodate highly dynamic group membership,
and support user-initiated small-group multicast in which the group is
defined as a set of explicitly addressed endpoints. Further challenges
include efficient multicast for limited-resource nodes and access links,
control mechanisms for hybrid systems, approaches to optimization in the
network, including routing, and operation in mobile networks, including
Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs)."

--> My interpretation would be that SAMRG intends to take group
management into account and consider multicast over specific scenarios.
For the former, I didn't recall much ML discussion on the design space;
For the later if I remember it correctly there is an ID (actually a
group of IDs) on mobile multicast recently and even discussed in last
IETF, would people here be interested on this and like to explore more
details?

"Deploying, diagnosing, debugging, and managing multicast services is
complex, particularly for services which span multiple administrative
domains. The RG will propose and evaluate tools and strategies for
deployment, operations, and management of SAM services."

--> I would rather see some document(s) and more discussions on
operational experiences on IPTV and  multicast deployments in the
Internet. This may allow better understanding of the customers' need and
what are the real operational requirements/constraints. Again question
is: would people here be interested in contributing and discussing their
related work/experiences to the RG?

"The RG will select candidates for analysis and evaluation from existing
research results. Researchers are invited to submit new approaches for
further investigation. Through experimentation, the RG seeks to deepen
its understanding of the solution space and to enable the identification
of preferred solutions as a function of dynamic network characteristics
and the number of multicast sources, receivers, and groups."
--> Well, we probably have some good starts in turns of evaluation of
existing works, but not much extended and reviewed in the RG - or I am
missing any active editors?

"The expected findings of the RG include characterizing the problem
space, including driving scenarios, comparisons and analysis of existing
approaches, a SAM framework that supports multiple ALM/OM/ native/hybrid
protocols, analysis of network infrastructure impact when multicast
traffic becomes a dominant flow in a network, and deployment scenarios
which are independent of but can support and evolve with network
infrastructure support for native multicast. The findings are expected
to be published in technical reports, academic papers, and/or RFCs."
--> This sounds reasonable scoping, but I cannot resist ask myself:
where are we now? Maybe it would be helpful if we could make the future
work agenda more clearly expressed, by defining RG (at least some
mid-term) milestones and soliciting active contributors (esp.
corresponding editors) for each of the work items, e.g., (roughly
sequentially in time but may overlay):

* A survey of existing non-IP multicast approaches (btw - did any
RG/IAB/IETF WG publish a survey on existing IP multicast protocols?
RFC3569? Otherwise, I would suggest also to look at IP multicast
protocols too as another potential work item) - Informational
* Evaluation metrics of multicast approaches - Informational
* An evaluation of Internet multicast approaches - Informational
* A SAM framework for interworking (?) between different multicast
approaches - Informational
* Operational experience of IPTV services (or IPTV operational
practices) - Informational
* Experience with the xxx Protocol - Informational (or BCP?)
* (Suggestions for) Multicast in mobile IP(v6) environments (or some
other scenarios) - Informational
etc.

My 0.02 cents
Cheers,
Xiaoming
Forest.Lin wrote:
> Hi,  I want to ask u a question , that is , when the sam-tk project can 
> release the first version on http://sourceforge.net/projects/samtk ? thx! 
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Forest.Lin
> 2008-01-03
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *发件人：* Eiichi Muramoto
> *发送时间：* 2008-01-03 15:35:14
> *收件人：* [email-masked]
> *抄送：* [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> *主题：* Re: [SAM] IETF-71 meeting for SAM RG
>  
> John-san
>

---

From: "John Buford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:13:40 -0500

Xiaoming,

Thanks for raising these points.  Please see the separate email on
SAM RG 2007 report for a partial answer to the question,
where are we now?

Let me give my personal views to some of your questions below.

John

> item but no team work being taken nor active draft at least from what I

I agree it is it a goal.  We also know that a few research publications have
compared several leading ALM/OM designs already.  Most of these
comparisons have been done through simulations.  This requires
a simulation environment that has a realistic network topology and can
scale to large number of end systems.  What simulation environment do
people think we should adopt in the RG?  The ones I could recommend
from personal familiarity are SSFNet and OverSim.

> architecture or prototypical idea?

Please see the SAM framework draft.  It was discussed in the IETF-69
meeting and the slides are on-line.  The basic idea is to partition the
Internet into domains of different categories of native multicast and ALM
support,
and use an extension to AMT gateways to bridge these domains.  This has the
advantage of leveraging the AMT work which is already being supported
by several vendors and for which open source implementations exist.
However AMT doesn't deal with ALM, only native multicast.  Hence the
extensions.

> systematic evaluation for various existing (non-IP) multicast proposals?

I think this is saying that the SAM Framework should be evaluated under
a variety of interesting dimensions.  Are new metrics needed?  Perhaps.
There are already various metrics in use, but these haven't been used
in the context of all these dimensions listed above.

Also, I don't expect to see VPN/GIG multicast work happening in the near
term
since it is not clear how much progress is being made on the GIG itself.

> IETF, would people here be interested on this and like to explore more

There have been no proposals in the RG that I can remember on ALM in mobile
P2P,
I don't think there has been much work on this in general.

> related work/experiences to the RG?

Sure, all operational experience is useful.

> missing any active editors?

More contributions in all areas of the SAM work areas including evaluations
would be a good thing.

> RG/IAB/IETF WG publish a survey on existing IP multicast protocols?

There are a few publications on surveying IP multicast protocols, but not
clear
if these were organized by an WG/RG.

> other scenarios) - Informational

I think there are enough WGs doing native multicast work already,
but hybrid schemes are in scope for the RG.

> Xiaoming

Thanks for the comments.  Please attend the IETF 71 meeting and
participate in the agenda.

John

---

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:49:46 +0100

Hi John,

Thanks for your quick response.
> SAM RG 2007 report for a partial answer to the question,

Maybe it could have been clearer, if action items were more visible to
the RG on what we intend to next. Some additional comments to your comments.

> 
>     http://www.samrg.org <http://www.samrg.org/> states that
Performance comparison is one (good) thing, various system design
methodologies and considerations (including deployment aspects) may be
another thing would be of interest. It would be cool if some noteable
publications could be a starting point for generating towards new SAM
framework space, but we may want to check which set of representative
specific approaches would be of interest for the RG and help
understanding the SAM needs.

> Internet into domains of different categories of native multicast and 
> ALM support,
Probably I missed it, but I can't remember that there was  a RG
consensus or decision making on moving any existing document as RG item(s).
Concerning this topic itself, my understanding was that, if there are
multiple MC (including IP and various non-IP MC approaches) deployed in
parallel in a single infrastructure, this maybe an interoperability or
interworking issue. Is this what you want to emphasis as the objective
of SAM framework?
> in the context of all these dimensions listed above.

It seems we converge here - Maybe we need some document identifying the
metric set as a work item...
> since it is not clear how much progress is being made on the GIG itself.

I am not much familiar with GIG; for VPN: at least L3VPN is discussing
MC (RFC4834)
> There have been no proposals in the RG that I can remember on ALM in 
> mobile P2P,
> There are a few publications on surveying IP multicast protocols, but 
> not clear

Again, if this is helpful for understanding SAM needs, maybe it would
not hurt to take a closer look first if some individuals would volunteer
to help and contribute...

> but hybrid schemes are in scope for the RG.

Maybe the issue is where the RG wants to investigate. AFAIK native MC is
being deployed in IPTV systems and some other constraint environments,
but not a global Internet, but its implication may be interesting to
know before studying hybrid schemes.

> participate in the agenda.

Thanks - I would be glad to join the meeting and discuss open issues
both face-to-face and in the ML. My impression is that the RG probably
wants to fix a limited set of work items and raise more technical
discussions here esp. contributing and reviewing more related documents
in order to move on... :)

Cheers,
Xiaoming

---

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:54 +0100

Hi Xiamoming, John, and all,

> I don't think there has been much work on this in general.
There is a good analysis and architectural proposal by Garyfalos &
Almeroth: "A Flexible Overlay Architecture for Mobile IPv6 Multicast",
IEEE Journ. on Selected Areas in Comm., 23 (11), pp. 2194-2205, November
2005.

Also, the Hybrid Shared Tree presentation Matthias gave in Chicago
headed in this direction:
   Wählisch, M., Schmidt, T.C. "Between Underlay and Overlay: On
Deployable, Efficient, Mobility-agnostic Group Communication
Services", Internet Research, 17 (5), pp. 519-534, Emerald
Insight, UK, November 2007.

>     other scenarios) - Informational
Work in this area is currently addressed in MobOpts. There is a
converging problem statement:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps

and quite a couple of solutions, which are referenced therein.

A discussion on IPTV issues has recently been issued:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-multimob-ps-mobilemulticast

Btw.: IPTV is currently deployed on significant scale in Europe, using
native IP Multicast and following the business model of carriers taking
the role of content providers/distributors.

Best regards,

thomas

-- 

° Prof. Dr. Thomas C. 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