[multimob] PIM at MAG vs multicast service

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Tue, 27 December 2011 04:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
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 4D2A721F8AF5 for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:26:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oxNfPZdU04m4 for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D1921F8AF2 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yenm7 with SMTP id m7so7621325yen.31 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:26:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=QN5nCtIqEFCFMRBoMMdsR1HzCXuHks4vPGR52cRgf1U=; b=soLJ5jWeD79OdrJ0ihd84cirM6Bo0GiIqc4zQZJbPYlKYhsvS3acbqjblfC98iWzmp 5bFyO+yUlYv1hSrSfV/GnPJqNQ+j/ngeYJu2xhbtCIR8yAwzHwRYh8bEGnj5P00/oMy6 HdkqLJZjodYvVTRrqOuCUX8LJWJuH1ZW8ewCc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.200.164 with SMTP id z24mr35169123yhn.127.1324959977384; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.125.201 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:26:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcd8ttZYbxLFTB3+=s_FeoEfgGqJYffDRegGKzXfN3xD_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: multimob@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [multimob] PIM at MAG vs multicast service
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob>
List-Post: <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:26:18 -0000

Hi all,

I have been reading the thread on
WG adoption call on draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt

unfortunately the discussions are no longer on
draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt which is on providing multicast
service and are very confusing to follow basically because somehow the
discussions have been diverted to another draft
(draft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07)  which is (among other
things) on PIM at MAG.

I suggest that we resolve the issue at hand, i.e.the adoption call first.


Afterwards I suggest that the authors of
draft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07 issue another draft and
clearly explain PIM at MAG idea and present it in the next meeting.
This should enable us to see if PIM at MAG is a routing solution to
the tunnel convergence problem.

The use of terms like local routing is becoming a big source of
confusion in the mails and in the drafts. Please note that in Netext
localized routing is used to mean MAG to MAG routing instead of the
regular MAG to LMA routing as in draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr. Staying
away from such terms is a way of avoiding confusion because maybe we
don't need to use this term in the first place.

Hope this helps.


Regards,

Behcet