Subject: Re: [multimob] Informal BoF Notes

From: Matthias Waehlisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:32:12 +0200

Hi all,

  here are some additions:

--snip--

Chairs introduce the multimob charter focusing on IGMPv3/MLDv2 and PMIPv6
extensions.

Mike: What is exactly mean with mobility, WiFi ...?
Brian: Mobile IP scenarios.

------

Thomas presents current status of problem statement draft. Last call will
be invoked after this IETF meeting.

Suresh: Problem statment covers also a lot of research issues. Source
mobility is a too large problem ... Only parts of the problem statment
should  be under consideration for the WG.

Marshall: We need a requirement draft, otherwise too big problem.
We should narrow down the problem scope.

Dave: Agrees with previous comments ...

------

Brian points out key issues of group management protocol extensions.
Would like to see an IETF requirement draft describing interfaces and
scenarios.

Marshall: Do you see that it requires a new protocol for IGMP?

Brian: No. Specifying either timing changes or additional messages that
handle mobility constraints will be probably sufficient - we should not
introduce fundamental changes to the group management, especially state
machine.

Toerless: API and protocol are two different issues.

Hitoshi: Extensions should be considered as optional function.

Brian: We need a requirement document about: Which scenario requires what.

Toerless: Why do we not concentrate on problems first, which are not
related to specific layer 2 technologies.

Suresh: One can optimize layer 3 for layer 2 technologies.

Brian: We should focus on general layer 2/layer 3 characteristics, not on
specific layer 2 standards - Toerless agrees.

Suresh: Maybe, we should introduce protocol profiles.

Brian: First step, is to understand the basic mobile IP requirements

Dave: Characteristics of link types seem more important than specific link
technologies.

------

Hui presents requirements for PMIPv6. LMAs maintains n times tunnels
(current situation).

Dave: asks for clarification of the problem addressed.

Discussion about first solutions.

Thomas: Do you want MN to change its IP-stack, when using PMIPv6?

Dave: The PMIPv6 scenario does not allow changes to the host!

Discussion: Requirement vs. problem statement ... Items on the slide
describe solutions and not requirements, e.g., LMA needs to buffer packets
during handover. The corresponding requirement would be: minimize join
latency.

Suresh: Minimize duplication of packets between MAG and LMA.

Hitoshi: MAG may become an IGMP/MLD proxy.

--snap--

Cheers
  matthias

-- 
Matthias Waehlisch
:. HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik       :. link-lab
:. Berliner Tor 7, 20099 Hamburg       :. Hoenower Str. 35, 10318 Berlin
:. Germany, mailto:[email-masked]  :. Germany, mailto:[email-masked]
:. http://home.fhtw-berlin.de/~mw      :. http://www.link-lab.net
:.
:. FU Berlin, Inst. Informatik, Berlin, Germany http://www.mi.fu-berlin.de
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob