Re: [multimob] Comments on draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

Hi,  Thomas,

I agree this scenario works for some deployment, but question here is
whether we need extend any pmip6 protocol to support this scenario?

thanks

-Hui

2008/10/24 Thomas C. Schmidt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>

> Hi Behcet,
>
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>  [thomas] RFC5213 does not address multicast routing (that's why we are
>> discussing it). The scenario described in fig 2 is *not* addressing
>> mobile multicast senders,
>>
>> [behcet] Then I think the text and figure on the local routing is not
>> needed because local routing in PMIPv6 refers to the routing of packets
>> coming from the uplink and as you said this would be multicast sender
>> situation which you left out in the requirements draft.
>>
>>
> [thomas] This is a misunderstanding: Fig 2 does *not* refer to sender
> mobility.
>
> but a typical content distribution setting as
>> for instance used in a provider-centric IPTV service. This means, a
>> provider issues multicast streams from within his network domain, aiming
>> at an efficient way to preserve (his own) network resources.
>>
>>  From the minimal perspective of RFC5213 (unicast routing) there is no
>> efficient way to do this. That's why we are trying to identify protocol
>> extensions that smoothly cooperate with RFC 5213.
>>
>> [behcet] The situation you are talking about could become valid if route
>> optimization is used with PMIPv6. In that case the content server in between
>> MAG and LMA would send directly to MAG. If route optimization is not used
>> then all traffic goes through LMA-MAG tunnel. Route optimization for PMIPv6
>> is some future work, there are drafts but we don't know if the
>> standardization will go ahead.
>> Route optimization with multicasting is even more complicated problem. If
>> you wish to state some requirements for this very complicated case please go
>> ahead.
>>
>
> [thomas] Hmm, I'm not trying to add complicated requirements. This is the
> overview about possible scenarios.
>  We're all just trying to think of a reasonable scope to address and solve
> the problem (so does the recent pmip6-extension-draft ... see also the last
> mail from Hitoshi).
>
> If multicast on PMIPv6 is supposed to serve as a solution for large-scale
> content distribution (like in IPTV applications), then we should not just
> propose to tunnel all traffic from one LMA to the MAGs. That's a bitter pill
> for those who have to pay for the infrastructure.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> --
>
> ° Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
> ° HAW Hamburg, Dept. Informatik
> ° University of Applied Sciences
> ° Berliner Tor 7, D 20099 Hamburg, Germany
> ° Fon: +49-40-42875-8452, Fax: -8409
> ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt
>