Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----
From: Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>
To: Thomas C Schmidt <[e-mail]>
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 12:49:25 PM
Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary


On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Thomas C Schmidt wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>> Let me clarify. Bidirectional tunneling mentioned in Suresh's  
>>> meeting summary refers to the tunnel between MN and HA as in MIP6/ 
>>> HMIP6. There could be Bi-Dir PIM and as Thomas says it could be  
>>> of interest to mobopts. Bi-Dir PIM is not of interest to  
>>> multimob. This is also clear from the meeting summary.
>> Why ? I was at the meeting and I did not get that impression.  
>> Please be specific.
>
> I would not see such differentiation ...
> to make things clear: bidirectional tunneling and bi-dir PIM only  
> share the "bi-directional" in the name - Bi-Dir PIM is not a  
> tunneling protocol.
>

Absolutely correct. It is a means of setting up PIM to pass multicast  
packets to and from a Rendezvous Point. No
tunneling is involved.

> On the other hand, bi-dir PIM is of special interest for source  
> mobility, for receiver mobility it should admit similar behaviour  
> as PIM-SM.

I would also agree here, with the addition that it might also be  
useful when the sources are also receivers (the service model  
basically assumes that nodes will be both).

[behcet] I looked at draft-ietf-pim-bidir-09.txt which is to become an RFC soon. It is about modifying PIM-SM with bidirectional trees. I can see value for us if bidirectional tree (not bidirectional tunnel as I originally thought )  routing will help reduce the latency for the mobile nodes.
So I stand corrected.


Regards
Marshall

>
> Cheers,
>
> thomas
>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Thomas C Schmidt <[e-mail]>
>>> To: Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; mobopts <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:24:13 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [multimob] multimob@IETF69 Meeting summary
>>>
>>> Hi Marshall,
>>>
>>> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Three approaches to multicast mobility were discussed
>>> >>
>>> >> * Remote Subscription
>>> >> * Bidirectional tunneling
>>> >
>>> > I suspect this could be done using Bi-Dir PIM more or less as  
>>> is. There
>>> > would have to be changes to support
>>> > SSM, and Bi-Dir has never been made interdomain, but neither  
>>> should be
>>> > that difficult in IPv6.
>>> >
>>> > If anyone is interested in exploring this, please let me know.
>>> >
>>> This remark on source-mobility agnostics of Bi-Dir PIM we already
>>> started to discuss in MOBOPTS, cf.
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps ... and we
>>> started keeping an eye on it a while ago: it's really interesting!
>>>
>>> And yes, we are looking at this and are interested in working a way
>>> further down there ...
>>>
>>> For the moment I personally doubt, though, that Bi-Dir can easily be
>>> extended to scale beyond domains.
>>>
>>> Anyway, Bi-Dir PIM can at least be embedded in (mobility-agnostic)
>>> hybrid approaches, cf.
>>> http://samrg.org/about/meetings/ietf69/mw69-foilsV2.pdf
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> thomas
>>> -- 
--behcet

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