Subject: [multimob] FW: new charter

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:54:51 +0900

Hi, Jari, 

"  Specific goals for the group are: 

  - A solution to the tunnel convergence problem by separating
    multicast routing from the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in
    PMIPv6. Possible techniques are using native infrastructure, using
    a dedicated LMA etc.
   ....
  The work will employ the remote
  subscription model. This is a mechanism by which a mobile node joins
  a multicast group and receives multicast data forwarded via the
  local mobility anchor."

I partially agree what schmidt said.

We are now proceeding base multicasting solution for PMIPv6.

As a next step, IMHO, enhancing performance for overall multicasting
mobility (MultiMob) needs to be covered.

On focusing the problem, direct routing solution is very good item but
mobility protocol needs to be generic.

And I'm not sure we need to stick "via the local mobility anchor".

To be honest, the local routing solution may not fit on the remote
subscription model.

Seil Jeon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Thomas C. Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:58 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [multimob] new charter

Hi Jari, hi all,

from a first look, the scope looks a bit too narrow to me ...

IMHO it's fine to start from PMIP, but there are a number of
problems/protocols that are better solved in a bit more generic way.

One obvious example is context transfer, where we believe that a rigorous
restriction to PMIP would narrow the value of an otherwise more general
approach
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-
03

... the other immediate example would be direct / optimized routing, where
the actual PMIP handover mechanisms fade to the background, and multicast
route organization towards the ARs comes into focus. Such mechanisms most
likely will not be bound to PMIP operations.

Cheers,

Thomas

On 09.11.2010 12:18, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Would this new charter be acceptable for the working group:
>
>
nov2010charternew.txt

Multicast Mobility (multimob)
-----------------------------

  Charter

  Current Status: Active

  Chairs:
      Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
      Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
      Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>

  Internet Area Directors:
      Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
      Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

  Internet Area Advisor:
      Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

  Mailing Lists:
      General Discussion: [email-masked]
      To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
      Archive: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

   The Multicast mobility (multimob) working group provides guidance
   for supporting multicast in a mobile environment. The scope of work
   will be limited to Proxy Mobile IPv6, IGMPv3/MLDv2 protocols and
   listener mobility. The group will work on extensions of Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 to improve its capability to handle multicast efficiently. Work
   requiring modifications to IGMPv3/MLDv2 is out of scope in this
   stage of this working group, however, as are modifications to
   multicast routing protocols.

   Specific goals for the group are:

   - A solution to the tunnel convergence problem by separating
     multicast routing from the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in
     PMIPv6. Possible techniques are using native infrastructure, using
     a dedicated LMA etc.

   - Extensions to PMIPv6 for handover optimizations including context
     transfer. A requirements document and solution document will be
     published.

   - The Multimob WG will explore PMIPv6 extensions needed to support
     multicast source mobility. Both any source multicast and source
     specific multicast source mobility will be covered.

   - Document the configuration of IGMPv3/MLDv2 in mobile environments

   The Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification as defined in RFC 5213
   does not describe how to support multicast. Some forms of multicast
   support can, however, be built in the involved nodes by using
   existing capabilities of multicast protocols and the underlying
   mobility protocols. The working group has already documented how
   existing mechanisms can be used to support multicast, without
   requiring any additions or changes to message types and parameters
   specified in RFC 5213, and assuming an unmodified mobile host. The
   current goals of the working group relate to improving the
   efficiency of this base solution. The work will employ the remote
   subscription model. This is a mechanism by which a mobile node joins
   a multicast group and receives multicast data forwarded via the
   local mobility anchor.

   IGMPv3/MLDv2 has been specified for wired networks with shared links.
   Mobile nodes have needs that are specific to wireless networks and
   mobility (e.g. entering a dormant mode to conserve battery power,
   minimizing the latency for joining and leaving a group in support of
   movement).

   In performing its work, the working group will work closely with
   both the mobility community (NETEXT WG) and the multicast community
   (MBONED WG). The group will consider both source specific multicast
   and any source multicast multicast models.

   Future work, subject to rechartering, may study/evaluate extensions
   to IGMPv3/MLDv2 to support better operation in mobile environments.

Goals and Milestones:
Nov 2009 - Initial version of a document on how to tune IGMPv3/MLDv2 for
mobility Apr 2011 - Initial version of document stating requirements on
PMIPv6 extensions for handover Apr 2011 - Submit a document on how to tune
IGMPv3/MLDv2 for mobility, for publication as either Informational or Best
Current Practice Jun 2011 - Initial version of document on PMIPv6 direct
routing optimizations to avoid tunnel convergence problem Nov 2011 -
Initial version of document on PMIPv6 handover optimizations Nov 2011 -
Initial version of document on PMIPv6 multicast source mobility solution
Apr 2012 - Submit requirements document to IESG for publication as
informational Jun 2012 - Submit PMIPv6 local routing optimizations document
to IESG for publication as Internet Standard Nov 2012 - Submit PMIPv6
handover optimizations document to IESG for publication as Internet
Standard Nov 2012 - Submit PMIPv6 multicast source mobility solution to
IESG for publication as Internet Standard Dec 2012 - Decision to include
additional optimization work involving extensions to IGMPv3 or MLDv2 Dec
2012 - Recharter based on the above decisions (or close the group if no new
work is needed)

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:10:18 +0800

OK