Re: [Mobopts] New ID: Multicast Mobility in MIPv6: Problem Statement]

[Thomas C Schmidt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zhigang,

many thanks for the review!

Andy Huang wrote:

> I reviewed your draft and it's really a good job, especially you 
> referred to a great number of references. Here ars some comments.
> 
> Section 2.3.1
>   "For application transparency the logical node identifier,
>   commonly the HoA, must be presented as packet's source address to the
>   socket layer at the receiver side."
> 
> I doubt about it. For the receivers using ASM, it's possible that they 
> need not care about the IP source address.
>
Yes, you are right. Actually, this is application dependent. There are 
UDP applications, which do not care about source addresses. However, 
many do, especially if they use RTP-Stacks (IP Source is part of the RTP 
session definition). A couple years ago we tested quite a number of 
applications regarding their behaviour on source address changes: most 
of them did react sensitive, some with error messges, some with real 
application errors.

So that's why we stated that a network multicast service should preserve 
address transparency, even if UDP sockets allow for address changes in 
general.

> Section 4.1
> "triangular routing"
> This term is introduced in MIPv4, to describe data flow path between MN 
> and CN. The data packets from CN to MN must pass through HA but data 
> packets from MN to CN can be forwarded directly. It forms a triangle. 
> It's not like this in multicast cases. I suggest using other words such 
> as inefficient routing to replace it. But it's not a big problem.
> 
:-), that's a minor formulation thing: some people (like us) call 
routing triangular, if it is not direct (an open triangle) ... some, 
linke in MIPv4, have a closed triangle in mind.
Anyway, it's clear though, I guess ....

> See you in Prague.
> 

Yes: looking forward to further discussions

Thomas

>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [Mobopts] New ID: Multicast Mobility in MIPv6: Problem Statement
>> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:32:21 +0100
>> From: Thomas C Schmidt <[e-mail]>
>> Reply-To: [e-mail]
>> To: mobopts <[e-mail]>,  [e-mail], Mip6 <[e-mail]>,
>>  [e-mail],  [e-mail]
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we submitted an updated version of the problem statement
>> draft on extending Multicast to Mobility.
>>
>> It should be in the ID directory soon and can immediatly be downloaded
>> under:
>>
>> http://www.realmv6.org/papers/draft-schmidt-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-02.txt
>>
>> Details:
>>
>>
>>               Multicast Mobility in MIPv6: Problem Statement
>>                   <draft-schmidt-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-02.txt>
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>     In this document we discuss mobility extensions to current IP layer
>>    multicast solutions. Problems arising from mobile group communication
>>    in general, in the case of multicast listener mobility and for mobile
>>    Any Source Multicast as well as Source Specific Multicast senders are
>>    documented. Characteristic aspects of multicast routing and
>>    deployment issues are summarized. The principal approaches to the
>>    multicast mobility problems are outlined subsequently.
>>
>>
>> The new document contains a number of clarification & language fixes and
>> has been extended to include
>>
>>  o further routing issues, especially bi-directional PIM;
>>  o additional approaches to a solution of mobile multicast tasks;
>>  o further references;
>>  o all major comments from reviewers.
>>
>>
>> As it seems desirable to advance on the subject, we'd like to emphasize
>> solicitation of comments & reviews ...
>>
>> Looking forward to your discussions!
>>
>> See you in Prague,
>>
>> thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> ° Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt
>> ° HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik
>> ° University of Applied Sciences
>> ° Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg
>> ° Germany, Fon: [phone]
>> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts