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

Niklas,
      I have two take aways from the BoF held in Minneapolis.  I will 
start two separate threads on the mailing list to discuss them, but at 
the high level they are:

1. Rather than focus on optimizations (i.e., LMA to MAG), focus on the 
basics needed to deploy multicast in the current PMIPv6 architecture.

2. Identify whether there is interest in investigating the performance 
of IGMP/MLD over wireless networks.

Regards,
Brian

Niklas Neumann wrote:
> Hy everybody,
> 
> are we satisfied with the charter proposal and the problem statement? It 
> was my impression that a lot of people didn't agree with some of the 
> assumptions made there. For example, LMA vs. MAG as multicast endpoints.
> 
> So maybe we should revise those documents and be a little more 
> conservative about the assumptions and statements made there. Something 
> along the lines of examining current multicast behavior in PMIP with the 
> goal of working on a best-practice guide or optimizations where needed.
> 
> At least the discussion during the BOF showed, that the specifications 
> are not clear about multicast in PMIP and clarifications are needed.
> 
> Best regards
>   Niklas
> 
> 
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>   At Multimob BoF last week it became clear that PMIPv6 requirements 
>> draft concentrated (probably) too much on the operating requirements 
>> and failed to state some simple traffic requirements.
>>   I remember these traffic requirements were already stated in the pre 
>> BoF meeting we had in Dublin.
>>   Any comments? Suresh?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob