Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Suggested text for issues 205 & 206

From: Marc Hasson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:31:25 -0800 (PST)

Gabriel,

Just a couple of very minor comments on your comments.

>I think a SHOULD is fine. On multicast, MLDv1 (rfc2710) is a proposed
>standard, but is soon to be obsoleted by MLDv2 (draft-vida-mld-v2-06.txt)
>currently under AD evaluation. Some of the text below was done based
>on the soon obsolete 2710 MLD specification. Might as well assume MLDv2.

Fine, if we really think there won't be MLDv1 mobile nodes to support.
I think it would be safest to allow for both unless the draft can
require MLDv2 support for MNs & HAs but it sounds like that might be
premature?

Thanks for the update, I didn't know where to look to find any official
status on what appeared to be an individually submitted draft.

>> To:
>> 
>> Interception and tunneling of the following multicast addressed packets
>> on the home network are only done if the home agent supports mobile
>> node multicasts as in the next (10.4.2+?) section.
>
>Ok.
>
>> Section 10.4.2
>> ----------------
>> 
>> Following this text:
>> 
>> (after delivering to other local multicast recipients). Multicast packets
>> addressed to a multicast address with scope larger than link-local but
>> smaller than global (e.g., site-local and organization-local[3]), to which
>> the mobile node is subscribed, SHOULD NOT be tunneled to the mobile node by
>> default. This behavior MUST be configurable to allow it to be enabled. Note
>> that this default behavior might change at some point in the future as the
>> definition of these scopes become more completely defined in IPv6.
>> 
>> 
>> Add within the same paragraph (just for clarity/completeness):
>> 
>> Multicast packets addressed with a global scope to which the mobile node
>> is subscribed MUST be tunneled to the mobile node.
>
>In order for this not to be construed as an absolute 'MUST'
>perhaps we should emphasize that it is conditioned on the MN
>having had success in subscribing. This depends on the HA
>supporting MLD, itself a SHOULD. So:

Yes, that was my intention by the To: text above which precedes all the
other scoped multicasts' SHOULD NOTs and MUST NOTs tunneling rules.
I was just adding one more to a list and wished to be consistent.
I believe the above sentence is clear the mobile node must have had success
in subscribing in order for the HA to know.

>> To obtain the mobile node's current multicast group membership the home
>> agent must periodically transmit MLD Query messages through the tunnel to
>> the mobile node.  These standard MLD periodic transmissions will ensure
>> the home agent has an accurate record of the groups the mobile node is
>> interested in despite packet losses of the mobile node's MLD Reports or
>> MLD Dones.
>
>change: "groups the mobile node is interested in"
>to:  "groups in which the mobile node is interested"
>
>and change: "MLD Reports or MLD Dones."
>to: "MLD Report Messages."

Should "Report" be lower case if we still allow for MLDv1 support where
the Dones are still important to not lose in order to not waste bandwidth?
Or just instead say "MLD group membership messages" to cover all bases.

   -- Marc --

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:50:22 +0100

> require MLDv2 support for MNs & HAs but it sounds like that might be

I guess you're right. Might as well include both.

> Or just instead say "MLD group membership messages" to cover all bases.

Agree, "MLD group membership messages" would cover all bases.

-gabriel