Subject: [multimob] Preparations for IETF-73

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:35:10 -0700 (PDT)

Hi all,
  Currently PMIPv6 multicast support requirements I-D is almost ready to be submitted. Please post your comments on the list after it is submitted. 
  As discussed in Dublin, the initial (-00) PMIPv6 multicast support solution draft should be posted in mid-October. IETF cut-off date for -00 draft submission is October 27, 2008.
  Group management protocol related drafts will also follow similar schedules.
  Internet draft final submission deadline is Nov. 3, 2008.
 
  We will also be making a BoF request by September 15, 2008.

  Please submit any drafts you have on Multimob related topics and announce it on the list.

Regards,

Behcet

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:42:58 +0300

Bechet,

Thanks for the efforts in setting this up. We are discussing the 
approval of this BOF in the IESG and IAB on the coming Friday.

I think the agenda and charter proposal look reasonable. I still need to 
read the new drafts.

Is there anything else you or others on this list want to say about the 
readiness state of this effort? Did you succeed in updating the drafts 
as agreed in the bar BOF? Do people on the list agree with the contents 
of the requirements draft?

Jari

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:03:47 +0900 (JST)

Hi Jari and Behcet,

> Is there anything else you or others on this list want to say about
> the readiness state of this effort? Did you succeed in updating the
> drafts as agreed in the bar BOF? Do people on the list agree with
> the contents of the requirements draft?

Regarding IGMP/MLD requirement draft
(draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-mobility-req), we will submit the revised
version (-01) about one week from now.

Thanks,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

---

From: Niklas Neumann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:24:07 +0200

Hey Hitoshi,

looking forward to the new version. The -00 version also was quite fine 
and I think it is a good starting point for a solution draft. Just two 
small suggestions:

Maybe there should be some general requirements included about the 
requirements that can or cannot be impose on the network-capabilities of 
the PMIP domain. Especially I think the question whether a solution can 
or cannot require native multicast support from routers between the MAGs 
and the LMA might be interesting. Just a thought.

Also I am not certain how to interpret "R6 - PMIPv6 multicast mobility 
management MUST equally cover IPv6/IPv4 only and dual stack nodes."
Are we considering more than IPv6 multicast, i.e. MLDv2, or am I just 
reading it wrong?

Best regards
   Niklas

-- 
Niklas Neumann - University of Goettingen, Institute of Computer Science
http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~nneuman1/
Tel: +49 551 39-172053
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:36:36 +0900 (JST)

Niklas,

> requirements that can or cannot be impose on the
> network-capabilities of the PMIP domain. Especially I think the
> question whether a solution can or cannot require native multicast
> support from routers between the MAGs and the LMA might be
> interesting. Just a thought.

I assume you are talking about PMIPv6 requirement draft, while I
mentioned about IGMP/MLD requirement draft in the last mail.

Anyway, regarding your comment, except the case of "Local Routing"
(Fig.2) in section 2, I think it is not necessary to consider
multicast capability of routers between MAG and LMA, because LMA and
MAG establish a bi-directional tunnel directly and every traffic
between MAG and LMA goes through this tunnel.

In the case of "Local Routing", routers between content source and MAG
must be multicast capable, or MAG needs some tunneling function to
attach the multicast routing tree. But I don't know whether this
discussion is required in the PMIPv6 requirement draft.
Do you have any concrete thoughts? Or am I missing something?

> Also I am not certain how to interpret "R6 - PMIPv6 multicast
> mobility management MUST equally cover IPv6/IPv4 only and dual stack
> nodes."
> Are we considering more than IPv6 multicast, i.e. MLDv2, or am I
> just reading it wrong?

My personal opinion is that this statement is a bit strong
requirement.
I think RFC5213 says PMIPv6 "may" support IPv4 or dual-stack mobile
nodes with the extension of other draft. I think PMIPv6 multicast
draft should also mention "may" not MUST for IPv4 or dual-stack mobile
node support.

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

> -- Niklas Neumann - University of Goettingen, Institute of Computer Science