From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Tue May 3 01:46:17 2011 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 063A1E06E1 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 01:46:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FsAd0IHipgS5 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 01:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50E9E070C for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 01:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 03 May 2011 10:46:09 +0200 Received: from S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.14]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 3 May 2011 10:46:08 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:46:08 +0200 Message-ID: <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC8027848033FB4FD@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <4DBADBB7.5000605@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: AW: [multimob] Thoughts on Context Transfer Thread-Index: AcwGg7CgBjwbp0iuReqBKE7EQmMt7wC6Ef1Q References: <4D9224DC.3000503@informatik.haw-hamburg.de><20110329.212051.109694544.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4D925C3B.1040608@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC80278480328CE93@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> <4D92E6EF.3070803@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC80278480338872C@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> <4DBADBB7.5000605@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2011 08:46:08.0838 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C18A660:01CC096E] Cc: rkoodli@cisco.com, multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Thoughts on Context Transfer 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, 03 May 2011 08:46:17 -0000 Dear Thomas, Thanks a lot for your valuable comments - I have to admit that these = scenarios are largely 'artificially constructed' and not very realistic = - see my comments (marked 'Dirk>' )below. Regards Dirk=20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Thomas C. Schmidt [mailto:schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de]=20 Gesendet: Freitag, 29. April 2011 17:40 An: von Hugo, Dirk Cc: Gorry Fairhurst; rkoodli@cisco.com; multimob@ietf.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [multimob] Thoughts on Context Transfer Hi Dirk, thanks for your perspectives ... and sorry for the late reply. Please=20 see below marked with "Thomas>": On 20.04.2011 16:35, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote: > Dear Thomas et al., > Regarding your wish for potential deployment scenarios (of mobile = multicast flows handling separated from unicast sessions ... I presume) = as below ... > >>> Regarding potential use cases for separated HO for multicast traffic = (independent of concurrent unicast traffic to the MN) a reason might be = operator policy running heterogeneous networks in parallel and doing = (multicast) traffic off-load e.g. from cellular (with only few = subscribers to a content) to a broadcast medium (e.g. DVB) in case the = subscriber group reaches a certain size making it economic to switch the = distribution path ... > >> O.K., I see. But still this is not exactly a PMIP-like scenario. In = your > case, MN would have to activate an additional radio interface (DVB or > ??) to receive multicast from there. But this interface would first = need > to configure a unicast IP address before participating in the = multicast > communication. However, this unicast interface would be newly > instantiated, thus experiences no context transfer, and also lives at = a > different media - so this may be rather a case for MIH?? > Thomas> Btw. I have discussed this use case with Gorry and he was=20 positive about it. Even though this is not a PMIP-like scenario, Gorry=20 pointed out that - in particular with DVB-type interfaces - there is=20 quite interesting work to do (preparing reception by channel:address=20 mapping etc.). Maybe this is something worth working on, as the support=20 of cheap broadcast-type link layers may be of interest in future = scenarios. Dirk> I agree that this might be the only realistic scenario - a = multi-RAT like ... >>> AR's in this case may be radio towers ... Spannung a larger area = than WiFi and cellular but nevertheless being limited e.g. in case of = highway or train movement ... > >> I agree, this is an interesting scenario, provided operators do such > things (or are interested in doing so ???). Still, the problem is a > different one, in particular for the case of unidirectional downlinks > such as DVB or satellites or ... > >> Even though I would argue that this scenario is something different, = it > might be quite interesting for the group to learn about possible > deployment options. Will you be able to gather knowledge on this area > and share with the group? > >> Thanks& best wishes > >> Thomas > > ... I have tried to finally come up with applications not requiring = multiple interfaces, since I agree that this would add too much = complexity to our current PMIP based approach. > > Nevertheless regarding increasing wireless data traffic forecasts (and = popular services with a one-to-many communication structure as in social = networks, e-learning, multi-player gaming and so on) operators may seek = to save radio resources by replacing several parallel unicast streams by = a single (or fewer) multicast streams. E.g. within an urban (WiFi or = cellular) network consisting of several access nodes (BS/NodeBs or APs = with overlapping coverage which are linked to different MAGs) one of = them is taking over the multicast traffic (or even is a 'multicast = dedicated' node) - and all MNs which have joined a multicast group are = moved to the single multicast stream emerging from that access node - = thus requiring decoupled handover for some (or even all) MNs. Thomas> This scenario would require two independent radio links at the=20 MN, one attachment for unicast and the other for multicast. I'm not an=20 expert on the capabilities of 3/4GPP radio interfaces at mobiles, but is = one NIC able to independently connect to two different cells and receive = independent data in parallel? Dirk> You are right, it would require muliple NICs and that is very = complicated for same radio technology and a handheld since due to = interference etc. the antennas have to be located apart - so this is = more suited for a router(e.g. NEMO Mobile Router) serving a whole = subnet. =20 In any case, we would see two different IP-interfaces at the MN, as well = ... and I still wonder how one of them should be a multicast-only=20 interface: even if data streams are sorted by interface for=20 load-balancing purposes, one would expect both interfaces to have a=20 unicast address, I suppose? Dirk> Yes, right again - I think each interface or NIC would have to be = addressed by separate IP addresses - but since we have IPv6 there should = be no shortage ;-) > > Similarily the new TV services allowing to switch between different = viewpoints (e.g. for sports event transmission) may require to transfer = more parallel streams than can be handled by a single access node such = that more than one Multicast dedicated access nodes exist. A user = switching between different channels may have to be handed over to the = 'right' node (and corresponding MAG). Thomas> This sounds really complicated to me because a mapping of L2=20 properties to multicast groups is needed. Either the MN or the cell APs=20 (in Network-operated handovers) would need to know which radio connect=20 serves which group. However, it may be interesting to think of such=20 "inverse" mappings (L2-ID -> mcast-group)? Dirk> I have to agree ... and no solution idea at hand > > Also the differing QoS requirements of parallel unicast and multicast = sessions of a MN (related to different services, e.g. mIPTV or video = conferencing with low delay vs. file transfer with 0 error probability) = may request in case of deterioating link quality to handover only the = unicast data session. Accordingly in case of failure of intermediate = nodes between LMA and MAG a rerouting may result in unacceptable delay = for real-time multicast streaming so that this flow is handed over to a = MAG with shorter path delay to the MN (in the scenario with multiple = visible MAGs per MN). > > At least in current 3G deployment with hierarchical cell structure = (HCS) macro cells and overlay micro or pico cells are in operation = serving the same area - and thus allowing for the assumed decoupled = handover on radio link layer. > > At the moment no more different scenarios come to my mind ... And of = course these are ideas only and not yet plans of an operator ;-) > Thomas> O.K., to sum up my understanding: There may be scenarios for a=20 MN to receive Mcast via a different interface than its default unicast=20 connect, and this interface may have the same or a different link type.=20 MN may be somehow pushed (via its default unicast interface) to activate = this additional link and configure multicast reception states without=20 transferring its unicast default route. Still I cannot see why this=20 second interface should work without a unicast address ?? Dirk> I didn't assume that AFAIAAO ... In the outcome, I see two interesting questions: 1. How to signal / manage the selection / activation of a new radio=20 interface by multicast subscription triggers and how to stir a per group = state transfer to it? (This is basically the DVB-related question.) 2. Once the additional interface for multicast reception is up and=20 running (incl. a unicast IP address), is there any difference in=20 handover operations from a normal "all purpose" default interface? (Or=20 isn't it just a second interface that has been select for parts of the=20 communication ?). Dirk> I see no difference to a normal interface but that the network or = operator has the chance to dedicate a separate interface to a specific = (multicast) service in order to allow for load control or balancing if = required or promising advantage (like higher overall throughput or more = suited - i.e. also not too high - link quality) The first question is outside the PMIP domain and not a "standard-type"=20 handover scenario that clearly requires new work: this is not solved by=20 simply de-synchronizing multicast from unicast ... Best wishes, Thomas >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] Im = Auftrag von Thomas C. Schmidt >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. M=E4rz 2011 00:25 >> An: Hitoshi Asaeda >> Cc: rkoodli@cisco.com; multimob@ietf.org >> Betreff: Re: [multimob] Thoughts on Context Transfer >> >> Hi Hitoschi, >> >> that may be - the first draft to present a context transfer by CXTP >> independent of unicast handover was >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-miloucheva-mldv2-mipv6-00 in 2005. >> >> The question was about the reasons and the sense behind it ... >> ... and my reason for asking is that I cannot think of good reasons = to >> do a multicast transfer directly between ARs decoupled from unicast >> handover. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Thomas >> >> On 29.03.2011 21:20, Hitoshi Asaeda wrote: >>>> Why don't we use a generic context transfer (by RFC 4067) for >>>> multicast states only, and leave unicast handover aside? >>> >>> As I presented today, our draft uses CXTP (rfc4067). >>> Regards, >>> -- >>> Hitoshi Asaeda >>> _______________________________________________ >>> multimob mailing list >>> multimob@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> > --=20 Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt =B0 Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner = Tor 7 =B0 =B0 Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, = Germany =B0 =B0 http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: = +49-40-42875-8452 =B0 =B0 http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: = +49-40-42875-8409 =B0 From stig@venaas.com Thu May 5 12:51:16 2011 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 30F75E09D7 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 12:51:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.987 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.612, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S4L0UOHtMM8b for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 12:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCACBE09DC for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.12.67] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D1197FD8; Thu, 5 May 2011 21:50:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 12:50:57 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Thu, 05 May 2011 19:51:16 -0000 Hi The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was presented in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about adoption there. A few people supported it, none were against. To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. Please read the document, and state whether you think it is ready for adoption or not. Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. Stig From Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com Mon May 9 13:55:33 2011 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 59713E06A4 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.244 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.505, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYeQEuZVRlZd for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (idcexmail.interdigital.com [12.32.197.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658E2E0961 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 9 May 2011 16:54:54 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC0E8B.593C7BBA" Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:54:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document Thread-Index: AcwOi1lX3S3ZD9rASiWeNmOccOdM0g== From: "Rahman, Akbar" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 May 2011 20:54:54.0904 (UTC) FILETIME=[59575380:01CC0E8B] Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:55:33 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC0E8B.593C7BBA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am okay with adopting the document. =20 Akbar =20 =20 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob/current/msg01121.html =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC0E8B.593C7BBA Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am okay = with adopting the document.

 

Akbar

 

 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob/current/msg01121.html

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC0E8B.593C7BBA-- From xiajinwei@huawei.com Mon May 9 22:35:06 2011 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 408FFE0682 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 22:35:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.656 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.839, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQv+ehZrvMia for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 22:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D773E067B for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 22:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKY00L9ESUEOF@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multimob@ietf.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:35:02 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKY00CJHSUE8F@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multimob@ietf.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:35:02 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) by szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:35:00 +0800 Received: from x65217 (10.138.41.84) by szxeml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:35:01 +0800 Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:35:01 +0800 From: Xiajinwei In-reply-to: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.84] To: 'Stig Venaas' , multimob@ietf.org Message-id: <012c01cc0ed4$01fdd610$54298a0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcwLXhXzn3V2bV9sRaO7AIPocaVcZADdcmIg Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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 May 2011 05:35:06 -0000 I support to adopt it as WG I-D. BR Jinwei > -----Original Message----- > From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:51 AM > To: multimob@ietf.org > Subject: [multimob] Adoption of > draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document > > Hi > > The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was > presented in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about > adoption there. A few people supported it, none were against. > > To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. > > Please read the document, and state whether you think it is > ready for adoption or not. > > Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune > IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Tue May 10 02:20:07 2011 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 01304E08EF for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bEbTG1NqrhkY for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 02:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CEDE06EE for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 02:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.21]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 10 May 2011 11:05:09 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.105]) by HE111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:05:09 +0200 From: To: , Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:05:06 +0200 Thread-Topic: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document Thread-Index: AcwLXhXzn3V2bV9sRaO7AIPocaVcZADdcmIgAAT9+tA= Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A257317A430@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> <012c01cc0ed4$01fdd610$54298a0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <012c01cc0ed4$01fdd610$54298a0a@china.huawei.com> 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] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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 May 2011 09:20:07 -0000 Dear all, I confirm my attitude in Prague and opt for adoption as WG draft. BTW some very minor nits may be corrected: P.5: may be potentially- =3D> 'may be' or: 'is potentially' P.6: is reached to =3D> 'reaches' or: 'actually reaches' wireless network to other wireless network managed by the different =3D> 'wireless network to an other wireless network managed by a different' According to our experimental analysis =3D> would it be possible to add an informational reference for that? P.9: to each desired hosts =3D> 'to all desired hosts' P.10 and required to support =3D> 'and is required to support' being interoperate =3D> 'being interoperable' Thanks and best regards Dirk > -----Original Message----- > From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:51 AM > To: multimob@ietf.org > Subject: [multimob] Adoption of > draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document > > Hi > > The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was > presented in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about > adoption there. A few people supported it, none were against. > > To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. > > Please read the document, and state whether you think it is > ready for adoption or not. > > Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune > IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp Thu May 12 21:29:59 2011 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 7B0EF130022 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 21:29:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, SARE_RECV_IP_222000=1.508, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXb34iTYLY8i for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 21:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A746D13001D for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 21:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (KHP222006121211.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp [222.6.121.211]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C864F27807F; Fri, 13 May 2011 13:29:54 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:29:53 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20110513.132953.180104533.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de From: Hitoshi Asaeda In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A257317A430@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> <012c01cc0ed4$01fdd610$54298a0a@china.huawei.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A257317A430@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Fri, 13 May 2011 04:29:59 -0000 Hi Dirk, Thanks for your careful review. I'll address them in the revised draft. Any other comments are also welcome. Thank you, -- Hitoshi Asaeda > Dear all, > I confirm my attitude in Prague and opt for adoption as WG draft. > > BTW some very minor nits may be corrected: > P.5: > may be potentially- => 'may be' or: 'is potentially' > > P.6: > is reached to => 'reaches' or: 'actually reaches' > > wireless network to other wireless network managed by the different > => 'wireless network to an other wireless network managed by a different' > > According to our experimental analysis > => would it be possible to add an informational reference for that? > > P.9: > to each desired hosts => 'to all desired hosts' > > P.10 > and required to support => 'and is required to support' > > being interoperate => 'being interoperable' > > Thanks and best regards > Dirk > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas >> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:51 AM >> To: multimob@ietf.org >> Subject: [multimob] Adoption of >> draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document >> >> Hi >> >> The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was >> presented in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about >> adoption there. A few people supported it, none were against. >> >> To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. >> >> Please read the document, and state whether you think it is >> ready for adoption or not. >> >> Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune >> IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. >> >> Stig >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From stig@venaas.com Mon May 16 10:28:50 2011 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 B4B4EE078E for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 10:28:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-vWroYeotZD for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 10:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A377E06D3 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 10:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:4:ea0c:3df7:2f72:3100:ccea] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:4:ea0c:3df7:2f72:3100:ccea]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE8DD7FE7; Mon, 16 May 2011 19:28:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DD15ECB.7080402@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 10:28:43 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hitoshi Asaeda References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> <012c01cc0ed4$01fdd610$54298a0a@china.huawei.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A257317A430@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <20110513.132953.180104533.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> In-Reply-To: <20110513.132953.180104533.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:28:50 -0000 On 5/12/2011 9:29 PM, Hitoshi Asaeda wrote: > Hi Dirk, > > Thanks for your careful review. > I'll address them in the revised draft. > > Any other comments are also welcome. I think we still need to hear from more people. Please let us know what you think of the current version. Is it ready for adoption? Any inputs that can help improve it are certainly very welcome as well. Stig > > Thank you, > -- > Hitoshi Asaeda > > >> Dear all, >> I confirm my attitude in Prague and opt for adoption as WG draft. >> >> BTW some very minor nits may be corrected: >> P.5: >> may be potentially- => 'may be' or: 'is potentially' >> >> P.6: >> is reached to => 'reaches' or: 'actually reaches' >> >> wireless network to other wireless network managed by the different >> => 'wireless network to an other wireless network managed by a different' >> >> According to our experimental analysis >> => would it be possible to add an informational reference for that? >> >> P.9: >> to each desired hosts => 'to all desired hosts' >> >> P.10 >> and required to support => 'and is required to support' >> >> being interoperate => 'being interoperable' >> >> Thanks and best regards >> Dirk >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas >>> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:51 AM >>> To: multimob@ietf.org >>> Subject: [multimob] Adoption of >>> draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was >>> presented in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about >>> adoption there. A few people supported it, none were against. >>> >>> To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. >>> >>> Please read the document, and state whether you think it is >>> ready for adoption or not. >>> >>> Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune >>> IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. >>> >>> Stig >>> _______________________________________________ >>> multimob mailing list >>> multimob@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From zehn.cao@gmail.com Wed May 18 23:45:08 2011 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 9D32DE074F for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oftcxf0xWDkT for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202DAE0713 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iyn15 with SMTP id 15so2421652iyn.31 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 23:45:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DSyAIn/3nNCCh47x8DHu9+bNiCcZL/61PHyL5yMfMeo=; b=xMtRpz6nVEZ+4130R/84S2SWa36RZL2eEhi8lYaZ4nldyl8IiLOBD4bKyrkokY2yyi e2vtAdjkfSmCAjLhAgWJtosyX7dPHDEcLyQff7g8L060A3T37Ewtw52QkPlMKjrgUj2P CmAyX4Mo/bqMEChj5shU8fPhSyUg2RcsD+UJQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=GfBKPXG7hta/Hz0z6L2lx3ydLJPtZyYNTT16XIy5JMUqtGI4UApXp51HjEEKXTZVBn JHM59Cyp8ls8vFwH8GH8a8eyReE1LceLxWqorKsBqYQlEFCcrR0cw1Y4rIVXkpb+j3XU to9IUTkwN/rK82DtKsF3v5ouHA5S4VKl9Y8KU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.138.200 with SMTP id d8mr3518060icu.219.1305787507617; Wed, 18 May 2011 23:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.169.10 with HTTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 23:45:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:45:07 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao To: Stig Venaas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Thu, 19 May 2011 06:45:08 -0000 I support the adoption of this draft, and this version is a good starting point. On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: > Hi > > The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was presented > in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about adoption there. A few > people supported it, none were against. > > To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. > > Please read the document, and state whether you think it is ready for > adoption or not. > > Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune > IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > -- Best regards, Zhen From liushu@mail.ritt.com.cn Thu May 19 00:01:36 2011 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 5E48EE074E for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 00:01:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.437 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rTNne-wXba31 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 00:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ritt.com.cn (unknown [114.242.138.101]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CB209E0713 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 00:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 219.142.69.34 by mail.ritt.com.cn([114.242.138.101]) with SMTP id S26E8EBB566; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:59:34 +0800 From: "Liu Shu@RITT" To: Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:01:34 +0800 Message-ID: <49CC12E35DD04630AB658041AD8A33BE@T400> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01CC1635.A542ADB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcwV8pbJy3sM04P2Rt2cCjspXeokDg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 May 2011 00:52:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Thu, 19 May 2011 07:01:36 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01CC1635.A542ADB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it can be adopted as wg ID, but this draft should focus on Explicit Tracking feature to explain how multicast signaling can be reduced. Liu, Shu ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01CC1635.A542ADB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think it can be adopted as wg ID, but this = draft should focus on Explicit Tracking = feature to explain how multicast signaling can be = reduced.

 

Liu, = Shu

 

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01CC1635.A542ADB0-- From gaoxlh@gmail.com Thu May 19 02:42:19 2011 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 A947CE0727 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:42:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.991 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xd7BHni-YePE for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2A6E069E for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so1512237pzk.31 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:42:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:references:subject:message-id :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t7OuDDWPhyyBOOaF+nxRyaRrYoBuZQfjZ1CKbi/3w1Q=; b=twclEAwL/UzDu+R8qsA4o5fat5bjAULmrasRhHWSYng+hAGWdnKasrCT1Sp0tRyJ7O S5TpuvUpmK/0pe5snbJWHmtEPLw+u4CQ3xAzZVlWb7gNXmLBzSwaTIdDHzN9R/Vh5lcj CwIJta0Myi4hlE50Fua7ilqWSv8NCUCnRnVFI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:references:subject:message-id:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NsTBIRlb3zVWS6a5EvTbrSpzO4smMaMjGgz2C5yh/RDUqOPNm9OZLKjwTM0OLw9dus Sk5zN4mdLFp7QHjaNS6CW0+6chxymzzUdcKN2e5weVitCHwjl+DUN5pTX0P6q6H+sBdi p7+agJfRdJawrKHa75fJrN7CzEpxlZmy3IkR8= Received: by 10.142.165.2 with SMTP id n2mr1836866wfe.5.1305798138567; Thu, 19 May 2011 02:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gao-PC ([211.71.74.133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k6sm2171881wfa.17.2011.05.19.02.42.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 19 May 2011 02:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:41:57 +0800 From: "=?utf-8?B?U2h1YWkgR2Fv?=" To: "=?utf-8?B?bXVsdGltb2I=?=" References: <023b01cc15c8$0ad6e600$46298a0a@china.huawei.com> Message-ID: <201105191741530976376@gmail.com> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 30 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: Re: [multimob] =?utf-8?q?Adoption_ofdraft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-op?= =?utf-8?q?timization-05_as_a_wg_document?= 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: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:42:19 -0000 ICBJIHN1cHBvcnQgdG8gYWRvcHQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGFzICBhIFdHIGRyYWZ0LiANCg0KU2h1 YWkgR2FvDQoNCgkNCg0KPT09PT09PSAyMDExLTA1LTE5IDA5OjUzOjA4IOaCqOWcqOadpeS/oeS4 reWGmemBk++8mj09PT09PT0NCg0KDQo+LS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCj5G cm9tOiAiU3RpZyBWZW5hYXMiIDxzdGlnQHZlbmFhcy5jb20+DQo+VG86IDxtdWx0aW1vYkBpZXRm Lm9yZz4NCj5TZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1heSAwNiwgMjAxMSAzOjUwIEFNDQo+U3ViamVjdDogW211 bHRpbW9iXSBBZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1hc2FlZGEtbXVsdGltb2ItaWdtcC1tbGQtb3B0aW1p emF0aW9uLTA1IGFzIGEgd2cgZG9jdW1lbnQNCj4NCj4NCj4+IEhpDQo+PiANCj4+IFRoZSBkcmFm dCBkcmFmdC1hc2FlZGEtbXVsdGltb2ItaWdtcC1tbGQtb3B0aW1pemF0aW9uLTA1IHdhcyBwcmVz ZW50ZWQNCj4+IGluIHRoZSB3ZyBtZWV0aW5nIGluIFByYWd1ZS4gV2Ugd2VyZSBhc2tpbmcgYWJv dXQgYWRvcHRpb24gdGhlcmUuIEEgZmV3DQo+PiBwZW9wbGUgc3VwcG9ydGVkIGl0LCBub25lIHdl cmUgYWdhaW5zdC4NCj4+IA0KPj4gVG8gZGVjaWRlIHdoZXRoZXIgdG8gYWRvcHQsIHdlIGFsc28g bmVlZCB0byBjaGVjayBvbiB0aGUgbGlzdC4NCj4+IA0KPj4gUGxlYXNlIHJlYWQgdGhlIGRvY3Vt ZW50LCBhbmQgc3RhdGUgd2hldGhlciB5b3UgdGhpbmsgaXQgaXMgcmVhZHkgZm9yDQo+PiBhZG9w dGlvbiBvciBub3QuDQo+PiANCj4+IE5vdGUgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGluIG91ciBjaGFydGVyIHRv IHN1Ym1pdCBhIGRvY3VtZW50IG9uIGhvdyB0byB0dW5lDQo+PiBJR01QdjMvTUxEdjIgZm9yIG1v YmlsaXR5Lg0KPj4gDQo+PiBTdGlnDQo+PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPj4gbXVsdGltb2IgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+PiBtdWx0aW1vYkBp ZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9tdWx0aW1v Yg0KDQo9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0NCgkJCQ0KDQrjgIDj gIDjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDoh7QNCuekvO+8gQ0KIA0KCQkJCSANClNodWFpIEdhbw0KTmF0 aW9uYWwgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcgTGFiIGZvciBOZXh0IEdlbmVyYXRpb24gSW50ZXJuZXQgSW50ZXJj b25uZWN0aW9uIERldmljZXMNCkJlaWppbmcgSmlhb3RvbmcgVW5pdmVyc2l0eQ0KQmVpamluZywg Q2hpbmEsIDEwMDA0NA0KZ2FveGxoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ0KMjAxMS0wNS0xOQ0KDQo= From pop.andrew@gmail.com Thu May 19 20:50:08 2011 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 81921E06A4 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 20:50:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6XTlxG933Iqp for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 20:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02A2E0651 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 20:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so1435191gxk.31 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 20:50:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=DTj92OVCoqUDlpPvoZmF0L4Z/fbkQiv5awAxWD/U9p8=; b=kMwnxInBA1CyiPHKdQOfl7Aqc++xtjxdLSIzvXAr/ZS0LECXmlSgGc93lH1fG5JVJC 4muPmwpJM4YgSG7yXafok/nk+u3GSYRruj6crxrfamBdW4PvdVGmPdB/ejRhFj+wXsC6 lluYl5ZnmkqItHQnzZQG4zF1gxa/erTKDeS+8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=AOUSCs6+omHVfUjRh96pV0a86qcEhiz+NaIP1juQv08iQ7XFzeKlBND5cKmFKmtO3Y sSlfDTOJEh/nrzDM8uPHQ3zf6SOsoHlr/Eqvm1mSG/bCHZ0dt2S6fiJH2Ss/d6X3gfQf 8j7Fi/X1cgpZj8r3RNGtXDdCoyHGwz+t8qNnY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.210.12 with SMTP id i12mr399248agg.47.1305863407134; Thu, 19 May 2011 20:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.83.17 with HTTP; Thu, 19 May 2011 20:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:50:02 +0800 Message-ID: From: andy L To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630ef6581ea1504a3ad0497 Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Fri, 20 May 2011 03:50:08 -0000 --00163630ef6581ea1504a3ad0497 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think it can be adopted as wg ID, but this draft should emphasize on how multicast signaling can be reduced by Explicit Tracking method. Liu, Shu --00163630ef6581ea1504a3ad0497 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think it can be adopted=20 as wg ID, but this draft should emphasize on how multicast=20 signaling can be reduced by Explicit Tracking=20 method.

 

Liu,=20 Shu

--00163630ef6581ea1504a3ad0497-- From multimob2011@gmail.com Wed May 25 17:50:50 2011 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 9BAD8E06C9 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:50:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3dCcbu9ds+0k for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092BAE064E for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so116370gxk.31 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=8of5v4fTx0DYIbfCUmpiP4x218MI19t8ju4KlTE+7Gw=; b=pbdgdYtCDQE22hWKnmrGv2F4RR6SOQMedKn4DAc9+SL2aRO0JzlHVZ47fk7GxxLtsw HRGfTCD4j7wtZREPQT2y0A9goV+LImYFpIHFOm6E4fLL13bXF/FM0+HWJxBCC89moXzK 6up7ExCJaMW0661vB4wXilTEJSo2hJa/mv2CM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=LURmn4pitkiaNgDm8FrVdqj7Le88IQDyVgz7uEo++SXlM4FyqiReAqtxdkWVLnOLRy H//S96QbY/Xuy1nUbx2QrYEBvHwzZ90VqhjWdUFF0f02V3mhn1KPbhr4w+LC0D5pO2tq 7PMMkwl51bzO5xi2srQD03pquYuR5v8D9YPlQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.4.19 with SMTP id g19mr330539ybi.18.1306371049461; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.201.21 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2011 17:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:50:49 +0800 Message-ID: From: Aaron Feng To: multimob@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd488ce59173504a42336a2 Subject: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 00:50:50 -0000 --000e0cd488ce59173504a42336a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! I'm now studying PMIPv6, and I'm confused about whether PMIPv6 can support multicast protocol and need some help. I tried to send multicast data orginated by MN to the MAG, but without fowarding multicast data to th= e LMA through LMA-MAG tunnel, MAG just discarded the multicast data packets even though I had run the multicast protocol. Here's my question. In RFC 5213, it says "On receiving a packet from a mobile node connected to its access link, to a destination that is not directly connected, the packet MUST be forwarded to the local mobility anchor through the bidirectional tunnel established between itself and the mobile node=92s loc= al mobility anchor." According to it, maybe LMA will discard the multicast dat= a for not having multicast forwarding stare but the MAG should forward packets. Does it mean PMIPv6 is just for unicast or the source code I used isn't consistent with what you mean? And what is the rules of MAG fowarding packets from MN? I'm very appreciated for your help! With best regards Aaron --000e0cd488ce59173504a42336a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=A0Hi! I'm now studyi= ng PMIPv6, and I'm confused about whether PMIPv6 can support multicast = protocol and need some help. I tried to send multicast data orginated by MN= to the MAG, but without fowarding multicast data to the LMA through LMA-MA= G tunnel, MAG just discarded the multicast data packets even though I had r= un the multicast protocol. Here's my question. In RFC 5213, it says &qu= ot;On receiving a packet from a mobile node connected to its access=A0link,= to a destination that is not directly connected, the packet=A0MUST be forw= arded to the local mobility anchor through the bidirectional=A0tunnel estab= lished between itself and the mobile=A0node=92s local mobility anchor."= ; According to it, maybe LMA will discard the multicast data for not having= multicast forwarding stare but the MAG should forward packets. Does it mea= n PMIPv6 is just for unicast or the source code I used isn't consistent= with what you mean? And what is the rules of MAG fowarding packets from MN= ? =A0I'm very appreciated for your help!=A0
=A0
=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0With best regards
=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Aaron
= --000e0cd488ce59173504a42336a2-- From asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp Wed May 25 23:09:00 2011 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 A037BE0651 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GZrDfN3m5uO6 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBD3E0671 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dhcp-143-228.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.143.228]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E0F2278083; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:08:27 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 15:08:24 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20110526.150824.21933019.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> To: multimob2011@gmail.com From: Hitoshi Asaeda In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 06:09:00 -0000 QWFyb24sDQoNCj4gIEhpISBJJ20gbm93IHN0dWR5aW5nIFBNSVB2NiwgYW5kIEknbSBjb25mdXNl ZCBhYm91dCB3aGV0aGVyIFBNSVB2NiBjYW4NCj4gc3VwcG9ydCBtdWx0aWNhc3QgcHJvdG9jb2wg YW5kIG5lZWQgc29tZSBoZWxwLg0KDQpSRkM1MjEzIGFzc3VtZXMgdW5pY2FzdCBhcyB0aGUgZGF0 YSB0cmFuc21pc3Npb24gYW5kIGRvZXMgbm90DQpleHBsaWNpdGx5IHN1cHBvcnQgSVAgbXVsdGlj YXN0Lg0KVGhlIG11bHRpbW9iIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgaGFzIGJlZW4gd29ya2luZyBmb3IgZGVm aW5pbmcgSVAgbXVsdGljYXN0DQpzdXBwb3J0IGZvciBQTUlQdjYgKHdoaWxlIHRoZSB3b3JrIGlu IG11bHRpbW9iIGlzIG5vdCBsaW1pdGVkIHRvDQpQTUlQdjYpLiBJdCdkIGJlIGhlbmNlIGdvb2Qg dG8gcmVhZCB0aGUgbXVsdGltb2IgbWFpbGluZy1saXN0IGFyY2hpdmUNCmFuZCBwcm9wb3NlZCBJ LURzIGluIHRoZSBXRzsNCmh0dHA6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9tdWx0aW1vYi8N Cg0KPiBJIHRyaWVkIHRvIHNlbmQgbXVsdGljYXN0DQo+IGRhdGEgb3JnaW5hdGVkIGJ5IE1OIHRv IHRoZSBNQUcsIGJ1dCB3aXRob3V0IGZvd2FyZGluZyBtdWx0aWNhc3QgZGF0YSB0byB0aGUNCj4g TE1BIHRocm91Z2ggTE1BLU1BRyB0dW5uZWwsIE1BRyBqdXN0IGRpc2NhcmRlZCB0aGUgbXVsdGlj YXN0IGRhdGEgcGFja2V0cw0KPiBldmVuIHRob3VnaCBJIGhhZCBydW4gdGhlIG11bHRpY2FzdCBw cm90b2NvbC4gSGVyZSdzIG15IHF1ZXN0aW9uLiBJbiBSRkMNCg0KRWFjaCBMTUEgYW5kIE1BRyBt dXN0IGhhdmUgbXVsdGljYXN0IGZvcndhcmRpbmcgc3RhdGUsIGJ5IGVuYWJsaW5nIGENCnJvdXRp bmcgKG9yIHByb3h5KSBwcm90b2NvbHMvZnVuY3Rpb25zLiBUaGUgc2V2ZXJhbCBpZGVhcyBoYXZl IGJlZW4NCndyaXR0ZW4gaW4gUkZDIGFuZCBJLURzLg0KQlRXLCB5b3UgbWF5IHdhbnQgdG8gY29u c2lkZXIgIm11bHRpY2FzdCBzb3VyY2UgbW9iaWxpdHkiLiBUaGVyZSBpcw0KYWxzbyB0aGUgZGlz Y3Vzc2lvbiB0aGF0IG1haW5seSBmb2N1c2VzIG9uIGl0Lg0KDQo+IDUyMTMsIGl0IHNheXMgIk9u IHJlY2VpdmluZyBhIHBhY2tldCBmcm9tIGEgbW9iaWxlIG5vZGUgY29ubmVjdGVkIHRvIGl0cw0K PiBhY2Nlc3MgbGluaywgdG8gYSBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbiB0aGF0IGlzIG5vdCBkaXJlY3RseSBjb25u ZWN0ZWQsIHRoZQ0KPiBwYWNrZXQgTVVTVCBiZSBmb3J3YXJkZWQgdG8gdGhlIGxvY2FsIG1vYmls aXR5IGFuY2hvciB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZQ0KPiBiaWRpcmVjdGlvbmFsIHR1bm5lbCBlc3RhYmxpc2hl ZCBiZXR3ZWVuIGl0c2VsZiBhbmQgdGhlIG1vYmlsZSBub2Rl4oCZcyBsb2NhbA0KPiBtb2JpbGl0 eSBhbmNob3IuIg0KDQpJdCBkZXBlbmRzIG9uIHRoZSBjb25kaXRpb24uDQpUaGlzIHN0YXRlbWVu dCBpcyBub3QgaW5jb3JyZWN0LCBvZiBjb3Vyc2UuIEJ1dCB0byBzdXBwb3J0IElQDQptdWx0aWNh c3QsIFBNSVB2NiBhbHNvIG5lZWRzIHRvIGhhdmUgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBmdW5jdGlvbnMgd2hpY2gg Y3JlYXRlDQphbmQgbWFpbnRhaW4gbXVsdGljYXN0IGZvcndhcmluZyBzdGF0ZS4NClRoZSBzdGF0 ZW1lbnQgd3JpdHRlbiBpbiA1MjEzIGltcGxpZXMgdW5pY2FzdCBkYXRhIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiBh bmQNCmRvZXMgbm90IGluY2x1ZGUgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gZm9yIHN1Y2ggYWRkaXRpb25hbCBm dW5jdGlvbnMgZm9yDQptdWx0aWNhc3Qgc3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KPiBBY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gaXQsIG1h eWJlIExNQSB3aWxsIGRpc2NhcmQgdGhlIG11bHRpY2FzdCBkYXRhDQo+IGZvciBub3QgaGF2aW5n IG11bHRpY2FzdCBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIHN0YXJlIGJ1dCB0aGUgTUFHIHNob3VsZCBmb3J3YXJkDQo+ IHBhY2tldHMuIERvZXMgaXQgbWVhbiBQTUlQdjYgaXMganVzdCBmb3IgdW5pY2FzdCBvciB0aGUg c291cmNlIGNvZGUgSSB1c2VkDQo+IGlzbid0IGNvbnNpc3RlbnQgd2l0aCB3aGF0IHlvdSBtZWFu PyBBbmQgd2hhdCBpcyB0aGUgcnVsZXMgb2YgTUFHIGZvd2FyZGluZw0KPiBwYWNrZXRzIGZyb20g TU4/ICBJJ20gdmVyeSBhcHByZWNpYXRlZCBmb3IgeW91ciBoZWxwIQ0KDQpJIGRvbid0IGtub3cg eW91ciBkZXRhaWwgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiwgYnV0IEkgdGhpbmsgc2ltcGx5IHlvdXIgUE1JUHY2 DQppbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBkb2VzIG5vdCBzdXBwb3J0IElQIG11bHRpY2FzdC4NCg0KUmVnYXJk cywNCi0tDQpIaXRvc2hpIEFzYWVkYQ0K From gaoxlh@gmail.com Wed May 25 23:32:22 2011 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 C0543E067A for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:32:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.991 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kf+3xW3lmWMB for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E4CE0715 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so182431pzk.31 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:32:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:cc:references:subject:message-id :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ortDObMBjhQv8Kq84e2+kuYzVH7c3e7rMr9cnNjKCFU=; b=SQCH36RZsV3yrnMiQM38TSIIKtNTFVYadCq6CelkM/MloqVy/F9NQIdPS7Sg+UCXWe +UEUdXsafSGP6jpRZFncq7ivuZmIE1K4e0XAtkc7B9+WPOLFZvhqzpdc0zVemmDv/5eo lzPH7Nh8VaxP+0S4b3BEogXXV59kVSYW7Nbzw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:references:subject:message-id:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZFpX45D8jvrK85NR276JcTvtTQ0WHi3iUt/elhQIdzEwP+vquTO0un69Gexcg+5Nwd 9g3kq1beNKKUWnI4qAHWpk9Lt2y/UhSgx2QT/TqNh4cc37He/cPqLCxi5PHPSVQUwrGw MBN07IDPj1/UNXz7yJtRf3iqdCk1I61c3b0Go= Received: by 10.68.52.105 with SMTP id s9mr181855pbo.245.1306391541506; Wed, 25 May 2011 23:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gao-PC ([211.71.74.133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t4sm774649pbm.47.2011.05.25.23.32.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2011 23:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 14:32:22 +0800 From: "=?utf-8?B?U2h1YWkgR2Fv?=" To: "=?utf-8?B?SGl0b3NoaSBBc2FlZGE=?=" References: Message-ID: <201105261432183269584@gmail.com> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 30 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Cc: =?utf-8?B?bXVsdGltb2I=?= Subject: Re: [multimob] =?utf-8?q?questions_for_RFC5213?= 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 06:32:22 -0000 QXNhZWRhLAkNCg0KPT09PT09PSAyMDExLTA1LTI2IDE0OjA5OjA2IOaCqOWcqOadpeS/oeS4reWG memBk++8mj09PT09PT0NCg0KPkFhcm9uLA0KPg0KPj4gIEhpISBJJ20gbm93IHN0dWR5aW5nIFBN SVB2NiwgYW5kIEknbSBjb25mdXNlZCBhYm91dCB3aGV0aGVyIFBNSVB2NiBjYW4NCj4+IHN1cHBv cnQgbXVsdGljYXN0IHByb3RvY29sIGFuZCBuZWVkIHNvbWUgaGVscC4NCj4NCj5SRkM1MjEzIGFz c3VtZXMgdW5pY2FzdCBhcyB0aGUgZGF0YSB0cmFuc21pc3Npb24gYW5kIGRvZXMgbm90DQo+ZXhw bGljaXRseSBzdXBwb3J0IElQIG11bHRpY2FzdC4gDQoNCkFzIHlvdSBzYWlkLCBSRkM1MjEzIGRv ZXMgbm90IGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgc3VwcG9ydCBJUCBtdWx0aWNhc3QuICBEb2VzIGl0IG1lYW4gdGhh dCANClJGQyA1MjEzIGFsc28gZG9lcyBub3QgZXhwbGljaXRseSBzdGF0ZSB0aGF0IGl0IGRvZXMg bm90IHN1cHBvcnQgSVAgbXVsdGljYXN0PyAgDQoNCj5UaGUgbXVsdGltb2Igd29ya2luZyBncm91 cCBoYXMgYmVlbiB3b3JraW5nIGZvciBkZWZpbmluZyBJUCBtdWx0aWNhc3QNCj5zdXBwb3J0IGZv ciBQTUlQdjYgKHdoaWxlIHRoZSB3b3JrIGluIG11bHRpbW9iIGlzIG5vdCBsaW1pdGVkIHRvDQo+ UE1JUHY2KS4gSXQnZCBiZSBoZW5jZSBnb29kIHRvIHJlYWQgdGhlIG11bHRpbW9iIG1haWxpbmct bGlzdCBhcmNoaXZlDQo+YW5kIHByb3Bvc2VkIEktRHMgaW4gdGhlIFdHOw0KPmh0dHA6Ly9kYXRh dHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9tdWx0aW1vYi8NCj4NCj4+IEkgdHJpZWQgdG8gc2VuZCBtdWx0 aWNhc3QNCj4+IGRhdGEgb3JnaW5hdGVkIGJ5IE1OIHRvIHRoZSBNQUcsIGJ1dCB3aXRob3V0IGZv d2FyZGluZyBtdWx0aWNhc3QgZGF0YSB0byB0aGUNCj4+IExNQSB0aHJvdWdoIExNQS1NQUcgdHVu bmVsLCBNQUcganVzdCBkaXNjYXJkZWQgdGhlIG11bHRpY2FzdCBkYXRhIHBhY2tldHMNCj4+IGV2 ZW4gdGhvdWdoIEkgaGFkIHJ1biB0aGUgbXVsdGljYXN0IHByb3RvY29sLiBIZXJlJ3MgbXkgcXVl c3Rpb24uIEluIFJGQw0KPg0KPkVhY2ggTE1BIGFuZCBNQUcgbXVzdCBoYXZlIG11bHRpY2FzdCBm b3J3YXJkaW5nIHN0YXRlLCBieSBlbmFibGluZyBhDQo+cm91dGluZyAob3IgcHJveHkpIHByb3Rv Y29scy9mdW5jdGlvbnMuIFRoZSBzZXZlcmFsIGlkZWFzIGhhdmUgYmVlbg0KPndyaXR0ZW4gaW4g UkZDIGFuZCBJLURzLg0KSW4gbXkgb3BpbmlvbiwgbW9zdCBvZiBQTUlQdjYgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRp b25zIGRvbid0IHN1cHBvcnQgIElQIG11bHRpY2FzdC4NCkNhbiB3ZSBleHRlbmQgdGhlIFBNSVB2 NiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiB0byANCmVzdGFibGlzaW5nIHRoZSBtdWx0aWNhc3QgZm9yd2FyZGlu ZyBzdGF0ZSBhdCB0aGUgTUFHIGFuZCBMTUEgd2hlbiBhIG1vYmlsZSBub2RlIGlzIGF0dGFjaGVk PyAgIA0KSWYgd2UgZG8gc28sIGRvZXMgdGhlIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIHN0aWxsIGNvbWZvcm0g dG8gUkZDIDUyMTM/IA0KDQo+QlRXLCB5b3UgbWF5IHdhbnQgdG8gY29uc2lkZXIgIm11bHRpY2Fz dCBzb3VyY2UgbW9iaWxpdHkiLiBUaGVyZSBpcw0KPmFsc28gdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdGhhdCBt YWlubHkgZm9jdXNlcyBvbiBpdC4NCj4NCj4+IDUyMTMsIGl0IHNheXMgIk9uIHJlY2VpdmluZyBh IHBhY2tldCBmcm9tIGEgbW9iaWxlIG5vZGUgY29ubmVjdGVkIHRvIGl0cw0KPj4gYWNjZXNzIGxp bmssIHRvIGEgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gdGhhdCBpcyBub3QgZGlyZWN0bHkgY29ubmVjdGVkLCB0aGUN Cj4+IHBhY2tldCBNVVNUIGJlIGZvcndhcmRlZCB0byB0aGUgbG9jYWwgbW9iaWxpdHkgYW5jaG9y IHRocm91Z2ggdGhlDQo+PiBiaWRpcmVjdGlvbmFsIHR1bm5lbCBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCBiZXR3ZWVu IGl0c2VsZiBhbmQgdGhlIG1vYmlsZSBub2Rl4oCZcyBsb2NhbA0KPj4gbW9iaWxpdHkgYW5jaG9y LiINCj4NCj5JdCBkZXBlbmRzIG9uIHRoZSBjb25kaXRpb24uDQo+VGhpcyBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgaXMg bm90IGluY29ycmVjdCwgb2YgY291cnNlLiBCdXQgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBJUA0KPm11bHRpY2FzdCwg UE1JUHY2IGFsc28gbmVlZHMgdG8gaGF2ZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGZ1bmN0aW9ucyB3aGljaCBjcmVh dGUNCj5hbmQgbWFpbnRhaW4gbXVsdGljYXN0IGZvcndhcmluZyBzdGF0ZS4NCj5UaGUgc3RhdGVt ZW50IHdyaXR0ZW4gaW4gNTIxMyBpbXBsaWVzIHVuaWNhc3QgZGF0YSB0cmFuc21pc3Npb24gYW5k DQo+ZG9lcyBub3QgaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBmb3Igc3VjaCBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGZ1 bmN0aW9ucyBmb3INCj5tdWx0aWNhc3Qgc3VwcG9ydC4NCj4NCj4+IEFjY29yZGluZyB0byBpdCwg bWF5YmUgTE1BIHdpbGwgZGlzY2FyZCB0aGUgbXVsdGljYXN0IGRhdGENCj4+IGZvciBub3QgaGF2 aW5nIG11bHRpY2FzdCBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIHN0YXJlIGJ1dCB0aGUgTUFHIHNob3VsZCBmb3J3YXJk DQo+PiBwYWNrZXRzLiBEb2VzIGl0IG1lYW4gUE1JUHY2IGlzIGp1c3QgZm9yIHVuaWNhc3Qgb3Ig dGhlIHNvdXJjZSBjb2RlIEkgdXNlZA0KPj4gaXNuJ3QgY29uc2lzdGVudCB3aXRoIHdoYXQgeW91 IG1lYW4/IEFuZCB3aGF0IGlzIHRoZSBydWxlcyBvZiBNQUcgZm93YXJkaW5nDQo+PiBwYWNrZXRz IGZyb20gTU4/ICBJJ20gdmVyeSBhcHByZWNpYXRlZCBmb3IgeW91ciBoZWxwIQ0KPg0KPkkgZG9u J3Qga25vdyB5b3VyIGRldGFpbCBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uLCBidXQgSSB0aGluayBzaW1wbHkgeW91 ciBQTUlQdjYNCj5pbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBkb2VzIG5vdCBzdXBwb3J0IElQIG11bHRpY2FzdC4N Cj4NCj5SZWdhcmRzLA0KPi0tDQo+SGl0b3NoaSBBc2FlZGENCj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPm11bHRpbW9iIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPm11 bHRpbW9iQGlldGYub3JnDQo+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9t dWx0aW1vYg0KDQo9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0gPSA9ID0NCgkJCQ0K DQrjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDjgIDoh7QNCuekvO+8gQ0KIA0KCQkJCSANClNodWFpIEdh bw0KTmF0aW9uYWwgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcgTGFiIGZvciBOZXh0IEdlbmVyYXRpb24gSW50ZXJuZXQg SW50ZXJjb25uZWN0aW9uIERldmljZXMNCkJlaWppbmcgSmlhb3RvbmcgVW5pdmVyc2l0eQ0KQmVp amluZywgQ2hpbmEsIDEwMDA0NA0KZ2FveGxoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ0KMjAxMS0wNS0yNg0KDQo= From asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp Thu May 26 00:05:43 2011 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 5E98EE0764 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:05:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYKpcZ4ASutC for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A0CE074C for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:0:8801:129a:ddff:fe4f:16d2]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 393CF27807D; Thu, 26 May 2011 16:05:11 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:05:10 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20110526.160510.105824365.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> To: gaoxlh@gmail.com From: Hitoshi Asaeda In-Reply-To: <201105261432183269584@gmail.com> References: <201105261432183269584@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 07:05:43 -0000 >>RFC5213 assumes unicast as the data transmission and does not >>explicitly support IP multicast. > > As you said, RFC5213 does not explicitly support IP multicast. Does > it mean that > RFC 5213 also does not explicitly state that it does not support IP > multicast? It says nothing about IP multicast support, while protocols conforming to IPv6 require IP multicat and hence you may see the word, multicast, in it. >>Each LMA and MAG must have multicast forwarding state, by enabling a >>routing (or proxy) protocols/functions. The several ideas have been >>written in RFC and I-Ds. > > In my opinion, most of PMIPv6 implementations don't support IP multicast. I think so, because there are no explicit specifications for IP multicast support for PMIPv6. > Can we extend the PMIPv6 implementation to > establising the multicast forwarding state at the MAG and LMA when a > mobile node is attached? > If we do so, does the implementation still comform to RFC 5213? There is no discussion about IP multicast in 5213. Hence there is no conformance to 5213 regarding IP multicast support. If the extension would follow the current or future RFCs, which will be defined in this WG, then you may say the extension conforms to it (or them). Regards, -- Hitoshi Asaeda From schmidt@fhtw-berlin.de Thu May 26 00:26:19 2011 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 00472E0688 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:26:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.63 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dnItNqZhXjpc for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de (mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de [141.45.10.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539DDE067B for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Envelope-to: multimob@ietf.org Received: from [147.67.4.98] (helo=[172.17.12.54]) by mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1QPUxU-000OFI-T6; Thu, 26 May 2011 09:26:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4DDE009B.5030005@fhtw-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:26:19 +0200 From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Feng References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-HTW-SPAMINFO: this message was scanned by eXpurgate (http://www.eleven.de) X-HTW-DELIVERED-TO: multimob@ietf.org Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 07:26:19 -0000 Hi Aaron, please have a look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6224.txt for PMIPv6 multicast receivers and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-pmipv6-base-source for sources. Your questions should be clearly answered there. For general background, please also see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5757.txt Best, Thomas On 26.05.2011 02:50, Aaron Feng wrote: > Hi! I'm now studying PMIPv6, and I'm confused about whether PMIPv6 can > support multicast protocol and need some help. I tried to send multicast > data orginated by MN to the MAG, but without fowarding multicast data to > the LMA through LMA-MAG tunnel, MAG just discarded the multicast data > packets even though I had run the multicast protocol. Here's my > question. In RFC 5213, it says "On receiving a packet from a mobile node > connected to its access link, to a destination that is not directly > connected, the packet MUST be forwarded to the local mobility anchor > through the bidirectional tunnel established between itself and the > mobile node’s local mobility anchor." According to it, maybe LMA will > discard the multicast data for not having multicast forwarding stare but > the MAG should forward packets. Does it mean PMIPv6 is just for unicast > or the source code I used isn't consistent with what you mean? And what > is the rules of MAG fowarding packets from MN? I'm very appreciated for > your help! > With best regards > Aaron > > > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Thu May 26 08:32:52 2011 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 18C3CE06D4 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:32:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.86 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.675, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ismtrXH+Z6Ed for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm14-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm14-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EE92E0677 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:32:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.50] by nm14.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2011 15:32:47 -0000 Received: from [98.138.87.11] by tm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2011 15:32:47 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2011 15:32:47 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 608905.64842.bm@omp1011.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 83205 invoked by uid 60001); 26 May 2011 15:32:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1306423967; bh=D5sfcFDsdLWwsUymusGq4zzOX9CF5O+w6QgeKgHz6PE=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HPzREsvM7YjNog/Kl5nmHq7AuLLN1ZPDOJrl9DSr6T6o2fissnv0C0pukJ6vGQDZlvEt1W7qiw+vR8UJU3NNQ80QiYfXAtUuQsh65LHw0X9weQ7dkFYKwOKqh7ku2JfO3ZSj4YVipbsm8DAgoM+/LZB5QNGbDp9feePqiGbgXd8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=QW5UZzetmlxqBBRvgDtl6KiYntmIhn9BUVfQ+oPTvAOH+/BM3mDd3nDCfsMgiMRYYRXzqPwdjGnEZwUEBT8UMmIxLo8PYmuDIIy3+4xlsBmurd3dzkqbF8l+0RmSnY29iHovwmredJfFo4Y/I3UTqjCIq4uf6bphiB6s1qnH33g=; Message-ID: <199291.79697.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: TVAGPVQVM1lXBvMsJ_a_.T6jA2DkQOQvUfDAE714B1UygX7 FiZUD4ljhpv4KTxKOKV1d_Q8tsttwKkuc9CE.DptQmgGOhiv_0pdrwguHobn 8PKo5Xpik3A1doFIcReDXGe2seXFrfdTlvclDbCeQGRcFibomNCWKE8TxyGs ANamXJshAgJ9sn.j3J.1vV46TzoqnOTWJLzuXVIeDZeFpFvA9OaSR.boaD.8 dgdyfP4Yl0wMJDbl4B0J2a88AJjY.zTTPyyfS1VLCSVcZ_MRK9XIyw8sirzD pr2Ehhwo.v.q4n5rvM05ZnCdIR8JOjAc3aV8BbqMrV7ismmIN9wSIJGsVORJ KSfi1cha8RoRbkj9YTkVlFbnUwxDcCKrUrUjB_9jx1.L8A0Nfazo0fsMwt2F YdQAyBzvp2Q.DzQ-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:32:47 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/567 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 08:32:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Aaron Feng , multimob@ietf.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 15:32:52 -0000 Hi Aaron,=0A=0AYou must have tried an implementation of the base spec of RF= C 5213 which =0Acertainly doesn't support multicast as several people indic= ated to you.=0A=0AMultimob WG so far developed a solution to enable MN to r= eceive multicast data =0Aand it is in RFC 6224. We don't know if it has bee= n implemented somewhere.=0A=0AIt seems that you are interested in source mo= bility, i.e. MN is the multicast =0Asource. Multimob is chartered to develo= p a solution and there are a few drafts =0Aon this, one is draft-schmidt-mu= ltimob-pmipv6-base-source and another is =0Adraft-zhang-multimob-msm. We ne= ed to decide in the coming months on a solution =0Ato source mobility. =0A= =0A=0AYour input in terms of reviews, etc. will be much appreciated.=0A=0AR= egards,=0A=0ABehcet=0A=0A> Hi! I'm now studying PMIPv6, and I'm confused ab= out whether PMIPv6 can support =0A=0A>multicast protocol and need some help= . I tried to send multicast data orginated =0A=0A>by MN to the MAG, but wit= hout fowarding multicast data to the LMA through =0A>LMA-MAG tunnel, MAG ju= st discarded the multicast data packets even though I had =0A=0A>run the mu= lticast protocol. Here's my question. In RFC 5213, it says "On =0A>receivin= g a packet from a mobile node connected to its access link, to a =0A>destin= ation that is not directly connected, the packet MUST be forwarded to the = =0A=0A>local mobility anchor through the bidirectional tunnel established b= etween =0A>itself and the mobile node=E2=80=99s local mobility anchor." Acc= ording to it, maybe LMA =0A=0A>will discard the multicast data for not havi= ng multicast forwarding stare but =0A>the MAG should forward packets. Does = it mean PMIPv6 is just for unicast or the =0A>source code I used isn't cons= istent with what you mean? And what is the rules of =0A>=0A>MAG fowarding p= ackets from MN? I'm very appreciated for your help! =0A> =0A> = With best regards=0A> = Aaron From stig@venaas.com Thu May 26 12:14:07 2011 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 E5C15E071F for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 12:14:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KqiP4HwM9ZM for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 12:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FD9E0770 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 12:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.107.115.202] (unknown [128.107.115.202]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAB1D7FED; Thu, 26 May 2011 21:13:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DDEA66C.2080107@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:13:48 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: multimob@ietf.org References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 19:14:08 -0000 It looks like we have sufficient support to adopt this. Quite a few in favor and no one against. Hitoshi, please resubmit as a wg document, Stig On 5/5/2011 12:50 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > Hi > > The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was presented > in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about adoption there. A few > people supported it, none were against. > > To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. > > Please read the document, and state whether you think it is ready for > adoption or not. > > Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune > IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com Thu May 26 13:03:09 2011 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 D791AE074E for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 13:03:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.144 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.455, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QkweU8SPkOvS for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 13:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm11-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm11-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 592F0E0747 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 13:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.68] by nm11.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2011 20:03:09 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.44] by tm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2011 20:03:09 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1044.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2011 20:03:09 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 296629.76116.bm@omp1044.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 9480 invoked by uid 60001); 26 May 2011 20:03:09 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1306440188; bh=ZfU2t+iF3z9yPmR6cTV01MJ8CzvCyUxejwYr+CnB3/o=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CuaaulL90TW0Np+3ngXpIBiVY4xLPTGGA2vpQKo8wZMPHCQ+x/v9PD2ohbeYFy/ajvW9h88TYWAygeka7ktmo/ScZCI9BJylhORXIvwi4x7mFEB1+J/aD8gN5XfsLzdv1wvqqx+j1nd9X/bMd1xOJ7BvN3NuNWtw7pLNp51GcVM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=kFE91ozk4sdhRz3UjhPBGhc6oboug8x3rIycWPw8vpiEZjAFaqiXyJtzylckA7wikZgoVwi38Q543HJiaaKzvE7nXa8odf0o69v3OxQCxOHmqSy3Mof2+NoN+wVAk7ET0mZ3P/qT1FK0JIfWl/mrEbyYUN/jypaF4f60IQpdCm0=; Message-ID: <940862.4003.qm@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: Q0b1uNMVM1nDkZDJlI2RA4qL4UtoK4Pt6aZUT7TpnFqXPHy xLc634qPIF1lgGbrtLxvznSufKBnQiQRvxK7gnRGkBkA5tAOZenhonI.8h.o SPTvnSwssrJ6CECQ3WbIroDtAKvdKkjRrpz6iwtfDUPdzTUtZ9om23zfTyMP J9E4zjSGwzYPUXuNl1b8dIwBAwq07Ae_6Ta7sIczxUglkeb4NqDLzvEARb7A V0498bhWvK.Wr_OQJ_pJfZfWVN5AZmSwaiGSWjd2C9__06ow3Ir29smyWPM3 iv3pPHDyH0bRR17wy1Kw0bRJX_ivSqMfkd8clWi9zsJsZIzFqNa9M.GmLjfv MMnzqCukaiOtnQvACp4Q_eU6_..9ohO6mddSuekdlZLqn6UUieY62afN8ABN Il_WwpsTWxPB9Ng-- Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2011 13:03:08 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/567 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> <4DDEA66C.2080107@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 13:03:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Stig Venaas , multimob@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4DDEA66C.2080107@venaas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya List-Id: Multicast Mobility List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 20:03:10 -0000 I suggest naming the WG draft as draft-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning in line with the charter. Regards, Behcet > > It looks like we have sufficient support to adopt this. Quite a few in > favor and no one against. > > Hitoshi, please resubmit as a wg document, > > Stig > > On 5/5/2011 12:50 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > > Hi > > > > The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was presented > > in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about adoption there. A few > > people supported it, none were against. > > > > To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. > > > > Please read the document, and state whether you think it is ready for > > adoption or not. > > > > Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune > > IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. > > > > Stig > > _______________________________________________ > > multimob mailing list > > multimob@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > From multimob2011@gmail.com Fri May 27 06:10:20 2011 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 55B7CE07D9 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:10:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91mnE-PvcRBW for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4F6E072E for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so959569gxk.31 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:10:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Bt8Jm1sJm5QswfRolhFhuL+Xvcsodrxb8IUgX+R7f6A=; b=dpXATF3GWIbt7VD8VjEK6qD4FLqAjSxS4/uXBzQqgOy5FyyvTqn+PbZikt6Tp0Oq0O KcF9qZ08LuJCzdhRFk/ILBHzksJ1N7Vh6BPugDNMyYd/N0lE840hfKxhI6bezT395Ust REN+Ogwg6fywu2YrotW27IC183yySg5cNhMR0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=itloRGn5Arx0HD/Mpo+T+meMV4xper40FkIx90G6SpPTKlHTV2vb9vQmq2nszHUuLL czGQ/52jvbOF28Gishsboxno+M/dlb034ITtRoWxoyfcxs1xlPl2Gya6jURvHZH+KwjL pENevPyN1O+ziImxHPyYT47DyI4EubeCl74Oo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.143.14 with SMTP id v14mr1989903ybn.132.1306501817658; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.201.21 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:10:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110526.150824.21933019.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> References: <20110526.150824.21933019.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:10:17 +0800 Message-ID: From: Aaron Feng To: Hitoshi Asaeda Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c4478bd6fbb04a441a8f8 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:10:20 -0000 --0015174c4478bd6fbb04a441a8f8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Asaeda I agree with you. There's no explicit function to forward multicast in RFC 5213, and I think because of this, most of the source code can't support multicast. --0015174c4478bd6fbb04a441a8f8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Asaeda
=A0I agree=A0with you. There's no=A0explicit function=A0to forward= multicast in RFC 5213, and I think because of=A0this, most of the source c= ode can't=A0support multicast.=A0=A0
--0015174c4478bd6fbb04a441a8f8-- From multimob2011@gmail.com Fri May 27 06:17:25 2011 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 DA090E06CE for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:17:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PA8Lnyhc2yPV for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE08E0679 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31so998104ywp.31 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:17:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LCaNUCgEi1iU66ErL9EqaURp5a+EPJfLwIk+JfOWSmw=; b=RpZ0SdIM3kD4oegqDo0vV1SK0W+CTEmfsNXDxXl866E810dPAUWh+pNw3PKQLY2Kcr PfmaRtv+XNn6UslP83X8AWAEC68qdaUp6m+tKqAhxO6vsMWS6pLNnUmgUwkpY5mzyBrT ILKb2HQJ73WLRgCQvB4eLe4tYhpwk/HBsKf8w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=HTCSG8kWfATsLK5IkX9t0PFRPeektCqRLdO+DR8UjCVwMYIGiX6l4I4U8Sky8LkGoG 1APyH0EISPD7N0axv4ddO12VMpJYD3+xtzHwUWSEJqrg1Xt+da61pVomYsL5LbMdHvI3 IpZFYUG07+YnpIlexa9zP4mcIS4p+7d5PSOW8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.193.17 with SMTP id q17mr1993848ybf.189.1306502244714; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.201.21 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:17:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DDE009B.5030005@fhtw-berlin.de> References: <4DDE009B.5030005@fhtw-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:17:24 +0800 Message-ID: From: Aaron Feng To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd63a0831c94c04a441c276 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:17:26 -0000 --000e0cd63a0831c94c04a441c276 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Thomas, I'll see it soon. Thank you! --000e0cd63a0831c94c04a441c276 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Thomas,
=A0
I'll see it soon. Thank you!=A0
--000e0cd63a0831c94c04a441c276-- From multimob2011@gmail.com Fri May 27 06:45:06 2011 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 7E1EFE06CE for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E9j0p-sqmXY8 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5E8E06DC for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so976011yxk.31 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qEgez6EGvPpEQ5j5a7EeVSPGWVkUesWORriMBG1dvu4=; b=TK1IgqyA7mI0rgxFjgMBhfqbQFBKKL1bIPgDQGbTKOKmdZKEbSASHqdOj4SdC6wEVC /1nXLoyBPUaGQi43b1XG/fJEPn+ohTZfnugKmqZOo1HI3e9Zzt5Z/lkuzTVPPziwwrlR BZbgFdcASeL+3XGrpk5Z9ZqOZuafQwsM5cmcE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=nHXiXoZ4S9x4TMvJPfeIeFCOcFMAetR18dWUVzQWt+IcOGxYk948qRQi9p4v52jHX2 RHq9Lnko9ydWynWdYDEUql2MjpEnIY9RXa/JYPLx+EtCVRhfJElkMqBfTKfwfydPWrww In3HFnB4OhzRK7QFyz4b/yx7Hk5+H1XlQjt2M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.193.17 with SMTP id q17mr2017887ybf.189.1306503905070; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.201.21 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:45:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199291.79697.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <199291.79697.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:45:04 +0800 Message-ID: From: Aaron Feng To: Behcet Sarikaya Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd63a0828ce5c04a4422589 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] questions for RFC5213 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:45:06 -0000 --000e0cd63a0828ce5c04a4422589 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Behcet, Yeah, they are right. Most of the source code for RFC 5213 is not supposed to support multicast service because the protocol indeed doesn't define any mechanism for multicast forwarding. I'll see the two drafts carefully . Best, Aaron --000e0cd63a0828ce5c04a4422589 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Behcet,
=A0
Yeah, they are right. Most=A0of the source code for RFC 5213=A0is not = supposed to=A0support multicast service because=A0the protocol=A0indeed doe= sn't define any=A0mechanism for multicast forwarding. I'll see=A0th= e two drafts carefully .
=A0
Best,
Aaron
--000e0cd63a0828ce5c04a4422589-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri May 27 06:55:49 2011 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 9BE3BE07EC; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:55:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wu8hS+YZ7FCQ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43504E0664; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:55:49 -0700 (PDT) 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: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110527135549.12492.41487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 06:55:49 -0700 Cc: multimob@ietf.org Subject: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-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: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:49 -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 Mobile Hosts and= Routers Author(s) : Hitoshi Asaeda Hui Liu Qin Wu Filename : draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2011-05-26 IGMP and MLD are the protocols used by hosts to report their IP multicast group memberships to neighboring multicast routers. This document describes the ways of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 protocol optimization for mobility, and aims to become a guideline for query and other timers tuning. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-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-igmp-mld-tuning-00.t= xt From I.Romdhani@napier.ac.uk Tue May 31 09:50:13 2011 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 A0B8DE07E0 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:50:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7utE8nCgVTvc for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:50:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TX2EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (tx2ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0D3E0789 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail39-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.238) by TX2EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.9.40.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:50:08 +0000 Received: from mail39-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail39-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A3F1A582D3; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:50:08 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: -49 X-BigFish: VPS-49(zzbb2dK9371M1be0L62a3K542M1432N98dKzz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:146.176.222.89; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPVD:NLI; H:crl-hub-1.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk; RD:crl-hub-1.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk; EFVD:NLI Received-SPF: pass (mail39-tx2: domain of napier.ac.uk designates 146.176.222.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=146.176.222.89; envelope-from=I.Romdhani@napier.ac.uk; helo=crl-hub-1.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk ; napier.ac.uk ; Received: from mail39-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail39-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1306860607801550_27634; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS012.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.249]) by mail39-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0841D48050; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from crl-hub-1.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk (146.176.222.89) by TX2EHSMHS012.bigfish.com (10.9.99.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:50:06 +0000 Received: from E2K7MBX.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk ([146.176.250.56]) by crl-hub-1.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk ([146.176.222.89]) with mapi; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:50:03 +0100 From: "Romdhani, Imed" To: Stig Venaas , "multimob@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:50:02 +0100 Thread-Topic: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document Thread-Index: Acwb2eLcUpzMMnUIRQqEBjf/SEs/jgD2CVSQ Message-ID: <78F1C759D89E1C44A6DD4C06B9A4B270C398AFB8B5@E2K7MBX.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk> References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> <4DDEA66C.2080107@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <4DDEA66C.2080107@venaas.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: napier.ac.uk Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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 May 2011 16:50:13 -0000 Dear all, I am sorry for not commenting earlier on this draft. I would like to share = with all folks some comments that I have already sent to the authors. I endorse the proposal and I do support it. However, I have some comments o= n the draft. Overall, there is still a need to clarify and to distinguish b= etween two aspects in the operation of IGMP/MLD. A clear distinction betwee= n Router Operation and Host Operation should be discussed especially when i= t comes to tuning decision either to speed up or to slow down control signa= lling messages. Another point that the authors have probably "missed" to discuss is the cas= e where a Mobility Agent (Home Agent, Proxy or Anchor Point) is a Querier. = In this case, the agent has to run multiple instances of the IGMP/MLD proce= sses on physical network interfaces and on tunnel interfaces. The behaviour= of IGMP/MLD should be naturally different as the awareness level of the mu= lticast membership is different. In addition, the processes are not indepen= dent as one may affect the other. Fixed members may affect mobile devices t= hat are away due to their join/leave activities. = As the values of the different timers are concerned, I think there is no ne= ed to fix them. Authors have justified their choice based on analysis that = they have done, but I think there should be a sort of variation (range that= can be enlarged or shortened) depending on different circumstances and the= layer 2 technology used. Having a track record of mobile members may be easy to detect and maintain = if the Home Agent is a Querier. In other cases, I don't see who we can dist= inguish the origin of an IGMP/MLD report message (i.e. coming from a mobile= or stationary device). Routers are connected in general to Wireless Domain= Systems or Access Points and they are not directly connected to mobile dev= ices (design assumption and management issue). Finally, a mobile device may need to speed up sending his IGMP/MLD report. = As far as I know, in Mobile IP specification, a mobile device needs to wait= first the reception of an IGMP/MLD query before being eligible to send a r= eport (through the bidirectional tunnel), probably this is an implicit part= of the Return Routability procedure (CoA needs to be validated before use)= . Hope my comments help to improve the draft. Kind Regards, Imed --------------------------------------------------- Imed Romdhani, PhD IEEE Member, FHEA = Lecturer in Networking Room C 64 Edinburgh Napier University School of Computing 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT UK E-Mail: I.Romdhani@napier.ac.uk Home Page: http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs244/ Telephone: +44(0)131 455 2726 Fax: +44(0)131 455 2727 --------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of Stig Venaas Sent: 26 May 2011 20:14 To: multimob@ietf.org Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimiza= tion-05 as a wg document It looks like we have sufficient support to adopt this. Quite a few in favor and no one against. Hitoshi, please resubmit as a wg document, Stig On 5/5/2011 12:50 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > Hi > > The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was presented > in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about adoption there. A few > people supported it, none were against. > > To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. > > Please read the document, and state whether you think it is ready for > adoption or not. > > Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune > IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob Edinburgh Napier University is Edinburgh's top university for graduate empl= oyability (HESA 2010), and proud winner of the Queen's Anniversary Prize fo= r Higher and Further Education 2009, awarded for innovative housing constru= ction for environmental benefit and quality of life. This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the Univ= ersity without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to e= nsure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or othe= r defects. = Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or= omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email e= ntering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filter= ing by the University. = Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373 From sunseawq@huawei.com Tue May 31 21:26:36 2011 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 BC0A5E078B for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:26:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.683, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id om7o7ksOGVRC for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE7AE075D for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LM3000XJG9BV0@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:24:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LM300BPOG9B37@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:24:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.138.41.70]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LM300EKQG9A2A@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for multimob@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:24:47 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:29:07 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Romdhani, Imed" , Stig Venaas , multimob@ietf.org Message-id: <014501cc2014$729ae3d0$46298a0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4DC2FFA1.3040103@venaas.com> <4DDEA66C.2080107@venaas.com> <78F1C759D89E1C44A6DD4C06B9A4B270C398AFB8B5@E2K7MBX.napier-mail.napier.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document 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 Jun 2011 04:26:36 -0000 Hi, Imed: Thank for your feedback, please see my reply inline. Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romdhani, Imed" To: "Stig Venaas" ; Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document > Dear all, > > I am sorry for not commenting earlier on this draft. I would like to share with all folks some comments that I have already sent to the authors. > > I endorse the proposal and I do support it. However, I have some comments on the draft. Overall, there is still a need to clarify and to distinguish between two aspects in the operation of IGMP/MLD. A clear distinction between Router Operation and Host Operation should be discussed especially when it comes to tuning decision either to speed up or to slow down control signalling messages. [Qin]: I agree it is more valuable to discuss how IGMP/tuning works in mobility usage scenario rather than limited tuning mechanism to the pure wireless cases. > Another point that the authors have probably "missed" to discuss is the case where a Mobility Agent (Home Agent, Proxy or Anchor Point) is a Querier. In this case, the agent has to run multiple instances of the IGMP/MLD processes on physical network interfaces and on tunnel interfaces. The behaviour of IGMP/MLD should be naturally different as the awareness level of the multicast membership is different. [Qin]: You are talking about how to differentiate between remote subscription case and home subscription case? As I said, I agree to discuss how IGMP/MLD tuning is used in mobility scenario. However I am not sure what's the difference of the behavior of IGMP/MLD in two different cases mentioned above? BTW: what kind of agent you are talking about process the IGMP/MLD message? I suspect the agent is not mobility agent. In addition, the processes are not independent as one may affect the other. Fixed members may affect mobile devices that are away due to their join/leave activities. [Qin]: How, can you clarify it more? > As the values of the different timers are concerned, I think there is no need to fix them. Authors have justified their choice based on analysis that they have done, but I think there should be a sort of variation (range that can be enlarged or shortened) depending on different circumstances and the layer 2 technology used. [Qin]: Agree. It is reasonable to allow parameters to be tuned vary from different circumstances. > Having a track record of mobile members may be easy to detect and maintain if the Home Agent is a Querier. [Qin]: Agree since home agent or other agent can maintain the record of each mobile members in the mobility scenario. In other cases, I don't see who we can distinguish the origin of an IGMP/MLD report message (i.e. coming from a mobile or stationary device). Routers are connected in general to Wireless Domain Systems or Access Points and they are not directly connected to mobile devices (design assumption and management issue). [Qin]: Why should we need to distinguish whther IGMP/MLD report message is sent from mobile device or a fixed device? > Finally, a mobile device may need to speed up sending his IGMP/MLD report. As far as I know, in Mobile IP specification, a mobile device needs to wait first the reception of an IGMP/MLD query before being eligible to send a report (through the bidirectional tunnel), probably this is an implicit part of the Return Routability procedure (CoA needs to be validated before use). [Qin]:As regarding to whether IGMP/MLD query is needed each time, I am afaid that I am not tending to agree. In some case, we need solicited membership report, in some case, we use unsolicited membersip report. e.g., the first subscriber joins a multicast group, or the last subscriber leaves a multicast group. > Hope my comments help to improve the draft. > > Kind Regards, > Imed > --------------------------------------------------- > Imed Romdhani, PhD > IEEE Member, FHEA > Lecturer in Networking > Room C 64 > Edinburgh Napier University > School of Computing > 10 Colinton Road > Edinburgh, EH10 5DT > UK > E-Mail: I.Romdhani@napier.ac.uk > Home Page: http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs244/ > Telephone: +44(0)131 455 2726 > Fax: +44(0)131 455 2727 > --------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas > Sent: 26 May 2011 20:14 > To: multimob@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [multimob] Adoption of draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 as a wg document > > It looks like we have sufficient support to adopt this. Quite a few in > favor and no one against. > > Hitoshi, please resubmit as a wg document, > > Stig > > On 5/5/2011 12:50 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: >> Hi >> >> The draft draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-05 was presented >> in the wg meeting in Prague. We were asking about adoption there. A few >> people supported it, none were against. >> >> To decide whether to adopt, we also need to check on the list. >> >> Please read the document, and state whether you think it is ready for >> adoption or not. >> >> Note that we have in our charter to submit a document on how to tune >> IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility. >> >> Stig >> _______________________________________________ >> multimob mailing list >> multimob@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > > > Edinburgh Napier University is Edinburgh's top university for graduate employability (HESA 2010), and proud winner of the Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education 2009, awarded for innovative housing construction for environmental benefit and quality of life. > > This message is intended for the addressee(s) only > and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. > Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or > damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University. > > Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish > charity. > Registration number SC018373 > > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > multimob@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob