From multimob-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 10:51:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGFY0-0001UN-OR; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:51:36 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGFXz-0001UA-3L for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:51:35 -0400 Received: from web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.206.196]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGFXy-0001LW-BQ for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:51:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 90164 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Aug 2007 14:51:33 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=dhj+/bXZtbYJGQO2J6ubSJcxt7z/6a/xlegTZnIPN8OYgKeXmlaSUmBr3nubeuTog8diUQ/VFSvw/GHiKKnNdFd9gybv9Zb+EShTGlIL1R7yYlyT5bmO1VFcwvvX2vNaH0w7yXUR9UHtKPqnLKIb3N1qftOfJMRv9xkZpBZzKVU=; X-YMail-OSG: l33lO1YVM1m6lnBXlSLSCZZWeZ6MFchINvGpdIsEgdG.4UIynFEKk5SXBXLS90zrEQ-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:51:33 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/651.41 YahooMailWebService/0.7.119 Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 07:51:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary To: Thomas C Schmidt , Marshall Eubanks MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <624822.88166.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Cc: multimob@ietf.org X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0782632337==" Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org --===============0782632337== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-153967012-1185979893=:88166" --0-153967012-1185979893=:88166 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's meeting summa= ry refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/HMIP6. There could be = Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be of interest to mobopts. Bi-Dir PI= M is not of interest to multimob. This is also clear from the meeting summa= ry.=0ALet's take any further discussion on Bi-Dir PIM to mobopts.=0A=0ARega= rds,=0A=0ABehcet=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Thomas C Schmidt = =0ATo: Marshall Eubanks =0ACc: multimob@ietf.org; mobopts =0ASent: Tuesday= , July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM=0ASubject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meetin= g summary=0A=0AHi Marshall,=0A=0AMarshall Eubanks wrote:=0A=0A>> Three appr= oaches to multicast mobility were discussed=0A>>=0A>> * Remote Subscription= =0A>> * Bidirectional tunneling=0A> =0A> I suspect this could be done using= Bi-Dir PIM more or less as is. There =0A> would have to be changes to supp= ort=0A> SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither should= be =0A> that difficult in IPv6.=0A> =0A> If anyone is interested in explor= ing this, please let me know.=0A> =0AThis remark on source-mobility agnosti= cs of Bi-Dir PIM we already =0Astarted to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf. =0Ahttp:/= /tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we =0Astarted k= eeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting!=0A=0AAnd yes, we = are looking at this and are interested in working a way =0Afurther down the= re ...=0A=0AFor the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easi= ly be =0Aextended to scale beyond domains.=0A=0AAnyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at l= east be embedded in (mobility-agnostic) =0Ahybrid approaches, cf.=0Ahttp://= samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf=0A=0ACheers,=0A=0Athomas= =0A-- =0A=0A=B0 Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt=0A=B0 HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informati= k=0A=B0 University of Applied Sciences=0A=B0 Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hambur= g=0A=B0 Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875-8157=0A=B0 http://www.informatik.haw-ham= burg.de/~schmidt=0A=0A_______________________________________________=0Amul= timob mailing list=0Amultimob@ietf.org=0Ahttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/list= info/multimob=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-153967012-1185979893=:88166 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in S= uresh's meeting summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/H= MIP6. There could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be of interest = to mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to multimob. This is also clear f= rom the meeting summary.
Let's take any further discussion on Bi-Dir PIM= to mobopts.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Me= ssage ----
From: Thomas C Schmidt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de&= gt;
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Cc: multimob@i= etf.org; mobopts <mobopts@irtf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM
Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary
<= br>
Hi Marshall,

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>> Three a= pproaches to multicast mobility were discussed
>>
>> * Re= mote Subscription
>> * Bidirectional tunneling
>
> I = suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as is. There
&= gt; would have to be changes to support
> SSM, and Bi-Dir has never b= een made interdomain, but neither should be
> that difficult in IPv6= .
>
> If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me= know.
>
This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM w= e already
started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf.
http://to= ols.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we
started= keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting!

And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way
furthe= r down there ...

For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-= Dir can easily be
extended to scale beyond domains.

Anyway, Bi-D= ir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic)
hybrid approache= s, cf.
http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pd= f

Cheers,

thomas
--

=B0 Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmi= dt
=B0 HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik
=B0 University of Applied Scienc= es
=B0 Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg
=B0 Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875= -8157
=B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt

__= _____________________________________________
multimob mailing list
m= ultimob@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf= .org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

--0-153967012-1185979893=:88166-- --===============0782632337== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob --===============0782632337==-- From multimob-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 11:49:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGGRz-0003ak-Ub; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:49:27 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGGRy-0003Yk-4W for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:49:26 -0400 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGGRx-0002mr-Ku for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:49:26 -0400 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 7969316; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:49:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <624822.88166.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <624822.88166.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <95485495-9202-41C0-B494-5C6F35B83ED4@multicasttech.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Marshall Eubanks Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:11 -0400 To: Behcet Sarikaya X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Cc: multimob@ietf.org X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's =20 > meeting summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/=20 > HMIP6. There could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be of =20 > interest to mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to multimob. =20 > This is also clear from the meeting summary. Why ? I was at the meeting and I did not get that impression. Please =20 be specific. Regards Marshall > Let's take any further discussion on Bi-Dir PIM to mobopts. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Thomas C Schmidt > To: Marshall Eubanks > Cc: multimob@ietf.org; mobopts > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM > Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary > > Hi Marshall, > > Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > >> Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed > >> > >> * Remote Subscription > >> * Bidirectional tunneling > > > > I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as is. =20= > There > > would have to be changes to support > > SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither =20 > should be > > that difficult in IPv6. > > > > If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me know. > > > This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM we already > started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we > started keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting! > > And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way > further down there ... > > For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easily be > extended to scale beyond domains. > > Anyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic) > hybrid approaches, cf. > http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf > > Cheers, > > thomas > --=20 > > =B0 Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt > =B0 HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik > =B0 University of Applied Sciences > =B0 Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg > =B0 Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875-8157 > =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From multimob-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 13:35:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGI6M-0005Hd-LH; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:35:14 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGI6L-0005BJ-8t for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:35:13 -0400 Received: from mail1.is.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.192.101]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGI6J-0004go-JX for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:35:13 -0400 Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (isis.informatik.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.10.60]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail1.is.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1C162951; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:35:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11033-01-7; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:35:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (adsl-67-127-53-141.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.53.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD123C0012F; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:35:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B0C51B.8080003@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:38:35 -0500 From: Thomas C Schmidt User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marshall Eubanks Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary References: <624822.88166.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <95485495-9202-41C0-B494-5C6F35B83ED4@multicasttech.com> In-Reply-To: <95485495-9202-41C0-B494-5C6F35B83ED4@multicasttech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.haw-hamburg.de X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV at mailgate.haw-hamburg.de Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86 Cc: multimob@ietf.org X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >=20 > On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >=20 >> Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's meeting=20 >> summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/HMIP6. There= =20 >> could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be of interest to=20 >> mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to multimob. This is also clear= =20 >> from the meeting summary. >=20 > Why ? I was at the meeting and I did not get that impression. Please be= =20 > specific. >=20 I would not see such differentiation ... to make things clear: bidirectional tunneling and bi-dir PIM only share=20 the "bi-directional" in the name - Bi-Dir PIM is not a tunneling protocol= . On the other hand, bi-dir PIM is of special interest for source=20 mobility, for receiver mobility it should admit similar behaviour as PIM-= SM. Cheers, thomas >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Thomas C Schmidt >> To: Marshall Eubanks >> Cc: multimob@ietf.org; mobopts >> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM >> Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary >> >> Hi Marshall, >> >> Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> >> >> Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed >> >> >> >> * Remote Subscription >> >> * Bidirectional tunneling >> > >> > I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as is. Th= ere >> > would have to be changes to support >> > SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither should = be >> > that difficult in IPv6. >> > >> > If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me know. >> > >> This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM we already >> started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we >> started keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting! >> >> And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way >> further down there ... >> >> For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easily be >> extended to scale beyond domains. >> >> Anyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic) >> hybrid approaches, cf. >> http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf >> >> Cheers, >> >> thomas >> --=20 >> >> =B0 Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt >> =B0 HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik >> =B0 University of Applied Sciences >> =B0 Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg >> =B0 Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875-8157 >> =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> >> >=20 --=20 =B0 Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt =B0 HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik =B0 University of Applied Sciences =B0 Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg =B0 Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875-8157 =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From multimob-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 13:49:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGIKG-0002C4-9g; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:49:36 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGIKE-0002Bl-HG for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:49:34 -0400 Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGIKE-00068X-14 for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:49:34 -0400 Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 7969906; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:49:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46B0C51B.8080003@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> References: <624822.88166.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <95485495-9202-41C0-B494-5C6F35B83ED4@multicasttech.com> <46B0C51B.8080003@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <64310253-C369-4E8F-B878-59C7393C02CC@multicasttech.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Marshall Eubanks Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:49:25 -0400 To: Thomas C Schmidt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7fa173a723009a6ca8ce575a65a5d813 Cc: multimob@ietf.org X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Thomas C Schmidt wrote: > Hi all, > > Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>> Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's =20 >>> meeting summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/=20= >>> HMIP6. There could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be =20 >>> of interest to mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to =20 >>> multimob. This is also clear from the meeting summary. >> Why ? I was at the meeting and I did not get that impression. =20 >> Please be specific. > > I would not see such differentiation ... > to make things clear: bidirectional tunneling and bi-dir PIM only =20 > share the "bi-directional" in the name - Bi-Dir PIM is not a =20 > tunneling protocol. > Absolutely correct. It is a means of setting up PIM to pass multicast =20= packets to and from a Rendezvous Point. No tunneling is involved. > On the other hand, bi-dir PIM is of special interest for source =20 > mobility, for receiver mobility it should admit similar behaviour =20 > as PIM-SM. I would also agree here, with the addition that it might also be =20 useful when the sources are also receivers (the service model =20 basically assumes that nodes will be both). Regards Marshall > > Cheers, > > thomas > >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Thomas C Schmidt >>> To: Marshall Eubanks >>> Cc: multimob@ietf.org; mobopts >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM >>> Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary >>> >>> Hi Marshall, >>> >>> Marshall Eubanks wrote: >>> >>> >> Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed >>> >> >>> >> * Remote Subscription >>> >> * Bidirectional tunneling >>> > >>> > I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as =20 >>> is. There >>> > would have to be changes to support >>> > SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither =20 >>> should be >>> > that difficult in IPv6. >>> > >>> > If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me know. >>> > >>> This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM we already >>> started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf. >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we >>> started keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting! >>> >>> And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way >>> further down there ... >>> >>> For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easily be >>> extended to scale beyond domains. >>> >>> Anyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic) >>> hybrid approaches, cf. >>> http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> thomas >>> --=20 >>> >>> =B0 Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt >>> =B0 HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik >>> =B0 University of Applied Sciences >>> =B0 Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg >>> =B0 Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875-8157 >>> =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> multimob mailing list >>> multimob@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >>> >>> > > --=20 > > =B0 Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt > =B0 HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik > =B0 University of Applied Sciences > =B0 Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg > =B0 Germany, Fon: +49-40-42875-8157 > =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From multimob-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 17:43:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGLyb-0006gS-B4; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:43:29 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGLya-0006gM-0Q for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:43:28 -0400 Received: from web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.206.193]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGLyY-00049E-QT for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:43:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 24351 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Aug 2007 21:43:26 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=kazDv0K2ePAjsVpMZqdJZaDCtIi4tFRxDyaQUCUW1/rbq2gTKURHNgXhlDJpxR5mNcAlF16oQZCJxZwRkJ6bNbZXDv7JMC724b0uBXy5H0RWfYBmJZZZHFn5AP4vCD8j1sA7Nek6GRjMe8ZLIiKcxVd8XfP2P0Z2K3WxXg9WTQA=; X-YMail-OSG: QG4ZKT4VM1nMzxwRDHU5nwF60RSv2QAEaUv7zyUTdFQNUyN4lU3gstC2HebOOsEf9_8raKMKUmMCGNH8tJKPv4JLfmGlVseuxyyJrw4X1oLJorKUm2Yzexe7yp7PHaa3dg-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:43:26 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/651.41 YahooMailWebService/0.7.41.16 Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:43:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary To: Marshall Eubanks , Thomas C Schmidt MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <284860.24343.qm@web84106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36c793b20164cfe75332aa66ddb21196 Cc: multimob@ietf.org X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1636546950==" Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org --===============1636546950== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1363500701-1186004605=:24343" --0-1363500701-1186004605=:24343 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii ----- Original Message ---- From: Marshall Eubanks To: Thomas C Schmidt Cc: Behcet Sarikaya ; multimob@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 12:49:25 PM Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Thomas C Schmidt wrote: > Hi all, > > Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>> Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's >>> meeting summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/ >>> HMIP6. There could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be >>> of interest to mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to >>> multimob. This is also clear from the meeting summary. >> Why ? I was at the meeting and I did not get that impression. >> Please be specific. > > I would not see such differentiation ... > to make things clear: bidirectional tunneling and bi-dir PIM only > share the "bi-directional" in the name - Bi-Dir PIM is not a > tunneling protocol. > Absolutely correct. It is a means of setting up PIM to pass multicast packets to and from a Rendezvous Point. No tunneling is involved. > On the other hand, bi-dir PIM is of special interest for source > mobility, for receiver mobility it should admit similar behaviour > as PIM-SM. I would also agree here, with the addition that it might also be useful when the sources are also receivers (the service model basically assumes that nodes will be both). [behcet] I looked at draft-ietf-pim-bidir-09.txt which is to become an RFC soon. It is about modifying PIM-SM with bidirectional trees. I can see value for us if bidirectional tree (not bidirectional tunnel as I originally thought ) routing will help reduce the latency for the mobile nodes. So I stand corrected. Regards Marshall > > Cheers, > > thomas > >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Thomas C Schmidt >>> To: Marshall Eubanks >>> Cc: multimob@ietf.org; mobopts >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM >>> Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary >>> >>> Hi Marshall, >>> >>> Marshall Eubanks wrote: >>> >>> >> Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed >>> >> >>> >> * Remote Subscription >>> >> * Bidirectional tunneling >>> > >>> > I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as >>> is. There >>> > would have to be changes to support >>> > SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither >>> should be >>> > that difficult in IPv6. >>> > >>> > If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me know. >>> > >>> This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM we already >>> started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf. >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we >>> started keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting! >>> >>> And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way >>> further down there ... >>> >>> For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easily be >>> extended to scale beyond domains. >>> >>> Anyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic) >>> hybrid approaches, cf. >>> http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> thomas >>> -- --behcet --0-1363500701-1186004605=:24343 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ascii
----- Original Message ----
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: Thomas C Schmidt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>; multimob@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 12:49:25 PM
Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary


On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Thomas C Schmidt wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>> Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's  
>>> meeting summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/
>>> HMIP6. There could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be  
>>> of interest to mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to  
>>> multimob. This is also clear from the meeting summary.
>> Why ? I was at the meeting and I did not get that impression.  
>> Please be specific.
>
> I would not see such differentiation ...
> to make things clear: bidirectional tunneling and bi-dir PIM only  
> share the "bi-directional" in the name - Bi-Dir PIM is not a  
> tunneling protocol.
>

Absolutely correct. It is a means of setting up PIM to pass multicast  
packets to and from a Rendezvous Point. No
tunneling is involved.

> On the other hand, bi-dir PIM is of special interest for source  
> mobility, for receiver mobility it should admit similar behaviour  
> as PIM-SM.

I would also agree here, with the addition that it might also be  
useful when the sources are also receivers (the service model  
basically assumes that nodes will be both).

[behcet] I looked at draft-ietf-pim-bidir-09.txt which is to become an RFC soon. It is about modifying PIM-SM with bidirectional trees. I can see value for us if bidirectional tree (not bidirectional tunnel as I originally thought )  routing will help reduce the latency for the mobile nodes.
So I stand corrected.


Regards
Marshall

>
> Cheers,
>
> thomas
>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Thomas C Schmidt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
>>> To: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
>>> Cc: multimob@ietf.org; mobopts <mobopts@irtf.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary
>>>
>>> Hi Marshall,
>>>
>>> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed
>>> >>
>>> >> * Remote Subscription
>>> >> * Bidirectional tunneling
>>> >
>>> > I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as  
>>> is. There
>>> > would have to be changes to support
>>> > SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither  
>>> should be
>>> > that difficult in IPv6.
>>> >
>>> > If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me know.
>>> >
>>> This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM we already
>>> started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf.
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we
>>> started keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting!
>>>
>>> And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way
>>> further down there ...
>>>
>>> For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easily be
>>> extended to scale beyond domains.
>>>
>>> Anyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic)
>>> hybrid approaches, cf.
>>> http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> thomas
>>> --
--behcet

--0-1363500701-1186004605=:24343-- --===============1636546950== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob --===============1636546950==-- From multimob-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 17:53:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGM8F-00022l-5h; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:53:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGM8D-0001zQ-NI for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:53:25 -0400 Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGM8C-0002yr-DM for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:53:25 -0400 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l71LwDJe021825; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:58:15 -0500 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.50]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:53:12 -0500 Received: from [142.133.10.140] ([142.133.10.140]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:53:12 -0500 Message-ID: <46B10079.9020304@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:51:53 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marshall Eubanks Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary References: <624822.88166.qm@web84109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <95485495-9202-41C0-B494-5C6F35B83ED4@multicasttech.com> In-Reply-To: <95485495-9202-41C0-B494-5C6F35B83ED4@multicasttech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2007 21:53:12.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B0D4150:01C7D486] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: multimob@ietf.org X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's meeting >> summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/HMIP6. There >> could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be of interest to >> mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to multimob. This is also clear >> from the meeting summary. > > Why ? I was at the meeting and I did not get that impression. Please be > specific. I agree with you. I did not get that impression either. In fact we did not accept or rule out anything in the solution space. I think we should keep our options open. If Bi-Dir PIM solves some of the problems we elect to solve, we need to consider it. Cheers Suresh _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From multimob-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 02 02:51:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGUWj-0008Pc-9D; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:51:17 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGUWh-0008Jz-M2 for multimob@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:51:15 -0400 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGUWg-0007S6-P1 for multimob@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:51:15 -0400 Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Aug 2007 08:51:14 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAADobsUaQ/uCKh2dsb2JhbACODwEBAQgKJw X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,211,1183327200"; d="scan'208"; a="149606256:sNHT40370748" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l726pD8o029101; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:51:13 +0200 Received: from xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-332.cisco.com [144.254.231.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l726pDo2024321; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 06:51:13 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-334.cisco.com ([144.254.231.79]) by xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:51:13 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:51:12 +0200 Message-ID: <85198C3A00F7664B87A81BF35767668D04B19649@xmb-ams-334.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <46AFB687.8000801@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary Thread-Index: AcfTwbwaTkP/yEDrRYya9R1E8Zlp4wBD4PXw From: "Bryan McLaughlin \(brmclaug\)" To: "Suresh Krishnan" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2007 06:51:13.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[845A9210:01C7D4D1] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2502; t=1186037473; x=1186901473; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=brmclaug@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Bryan=20McLaughlin=20\(brmclaug\)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[multimob]=20multimob@IETF69=20Meeting=20summary |Sender:=20; bh=Ui4wfP6WssndN7In4TMDnOVTVmQeVu1A/7znX+7rO7Y=; b=MSh+Q3fhR8l81taR5uEkgSbxxMvIyKBNx776kVfEhTcvD6cbCmvCzwK1UHV42Afh2KLzaG0m ul73uuRaUgwOvNH9r4lCMhcW50oK/qxKJCs0D9tNlWPihzu/Z13QrSID; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=brmclaug@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org Apologies for the late reply Please remember my comments regarding state persistence after a host moves.=20 Bryan=20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: 31 July 2007 23:24 To: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary Hi Folks, Here is a summary of the multimob meeting we had at IETF69. It is a subjective view of what happened at the meeting. Let me know if you have any issues, comments, or corrections. multimob@IETF69 Summary =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The goal of the bar BOF was to identify the problems that need to be solved in the near future. The secondary goal of the bar BOF was to identify the working groups in the IETF that can do the work (if any).=20 The attendance for the bar BOF was as expected (27 people) covering researchers, implementers and operators. The problem statements were presented. The presentations were followed, and sometimes interrupted, by related discussions. Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed * Remote Subscription * Bidirectional tunneling * Agent based Some of the people in the meeting believed that the problems to be solved need to be defined by the operator (The majority,I believe).=20 There were other vocal critics who believed that this is not the right approach to follow since the operators typically lag behind in multicast. After the ensuing discussions, it became clear that the problems that need to be solved are the following * Receiver mobility Issues due to latency * join latency - can be fixed with link layer indicators * leave latency - much harder to fix, may require changes to MLD,PIM * SSM issues with mobility Problems which are out of scope for now * Sender mobility These problems can theoretically be solved by extensions to existing unicast mobility protocols like {,f,h,p}mipv6 and extensions to multicast protocols like MLD and pmip6. Conclusion =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D We need to put in further effort to investigate if these fall under the charter of current working groups or not. We also need to come up with a collective list of requirements to work on. Further work will be done on the mailing list. Cheers Suresh _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob