Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message

Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> Wed, 21 May 2008 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <multimob-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: multimob-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-multimob-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5B73A735D; Tue, 20 May 2008 20:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: multimob@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multimob@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B75A3A6FFF for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2008 20:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.264
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cv2CdqdsA3tD for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 May 2008 20:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web84315.mail.re1.yahoo.com (web84315.mail.re1.yahoo.com [69.147.74.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E4A528CABB for <multimob@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2008 07:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 93788 invoked by uid 60001); 20 May 2008 14:35:09 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=ntx9jn51opUWp1Xv39d1y3WdSI0uEAWj2gwK6fzinc5FlUPv9TrB1F9nhUMiu3eNeSdR/saU1UWG8IqPd2Z2j37cBXeKe6EKo0xFDBzoXOfFPlfzH4ZBbeAg+mFqk4FnsY0wqB1E76feahlfCwq8TJhi4CHwbtb+15GHsa+a+w8=;
X-YMail-OSG: 5OWafo4VM1mGVlDAPJ.ha3Dg5rbYxmOzDcW40CEqgYqNNHCEYmhuaf.zmjInENQJd76wZLcPg8EY.17G8toW.o5yB41zLq2idsI3DwdQ5ffLGSEFjDAEWQaOZ_c-
Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web84315.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 20 May 2008 07:35:09 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/902.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.185
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 07:35:09 -0700
From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
To: Desire Oulai <desire.oulai@ericsson.com>, multimob@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <499986.93086.qm@web84315.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1713191456=="
Sender: multimob-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org

So should Multimob concentrate on MIPv6, PMIPv6 and DSMIPv6 solutions? 
What about v4 solutions?



Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Desire Oulai <desire.oulai@ericsson.com>
To: multimob@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:39:39 AM
Subject: Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message

Hi Alvaro,

 Just to clarify that 3GPP also uses DSMIP6 which is a "MIPv6 with IPv4
support". I agree that it is better to focus first on solutions for
MIPv6 and PMIPv6. These solutions could be extended later.

Best Regards

Desire

> -----Original Message-----
> From: multimob-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> multimob-request@ietf.org
> Sent: May 16, 2008 9:08 AM
> To: multimob@ietf.org
> Subject: multimob Digest, Vol 13, Issue 4
> 
> Hi,
>  
> Just some comments: I read the draft about multicast and 
> HMIPv6 and I have a doubt about if HMIPv6 is a succcesful 
> technology or not.
>  
> I am not a Mobile IP expert, but from what I know:
>  
> 1. 3GPP2 (USA) uses Mobile IP but not HMIPv6 2. 3GPP (Europe) 
> uses something similar to Proxy Mobile IP draft and still 
> doesn't support Mobile IP 3. IMS (IP Multimedia Subsytem) is 
> expecting the Proxy Mobile IPv6 draft to reach RFC status. 
> This technology is considered "critical" for IMS. IMS is 
> based on IPv6 but I think it still doesn't support Mobile IP 
> ( I am not sure about this) Both 3GPP and 3GPP2 are going to 
> implement IMS
>  
> Of course, Mobile IP can be used not only in Mobile Phones. 
> It can be used with WIFI, Wimax or other wireless 
> technologies. But I think it's better one solution for 
> muticast Mobile IP that could be also used with 3GPP, 3GPP2 and IMS.
>  
> So, my doubts are
>  
> is HMIPv6 a successful technology?
> is it really being implemented by ISP?
>  
> Best regards
> 
> Alvaro
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> De: multimob-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de Hitoshi Asaeda 
> Enviado el: jue 15/05/2008 19:16
> Para: sarikaya@ieee.org; behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com
> CC: multimob@ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message
> 
> 
> 
> >   We had a discussion on where MLD/IGMP Hold message needs to be 
> > specified. There are two options: either it is specified in 
> MLD/IGMP 
> > Mobile draft or in individual protocol extension draft(s) for 
> > HMIP/MIP, etc.
> >
> >   Please post your opinions.
> 
> Maybe I should clarify.
> 
> I sent a mail to the multimob ML on Apr.14.
> 
> Thomas proposed MLD hold message in;
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schmidt-waehlisch-mhmipv6
> 
> It assumes the use of MLD hold message with HMIP6.
> On the other hand, MLD hold message might be useful for fast 
> handover scenario in general, because MLD hold asks to the 
> upstream mrouter or proxy (i.e. MAPs or HA) to keep join 
> state during MN's movement and recover the multicast session 
> after MN's movement.
> 
> On the other hand, one may think that MLD hold state is not 
> mandatory as the general MLD extension, because the fast 
> handover would be much faster than the time of membership 
> expiration maintained by MLD. This means even if MN does not 
> send any MLD message to his upstream router or proxy, he can 
> recover the multicast session quickly since he can move to 
> the new mobile network very fast (i.e. faster than MLD 
> expiration time).
> I don't know if it's always true or not.
> 
> So now, I'd like to hear your opinions.
> If MLD hold is useful especially (or only) for HMIP, then MLD 
> hold specification would be kept in the above HMIP draft.
> If it is useful to propose it as the MLD extension as the 
> general function, I'm happy to work for defining the 
> specification in the MLD extension draft with Thomas.
> 
> Thank you for your input.
> --
> Hitoshi Asaeda
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> multimob@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/multimob/attachments/20080516/61
> 14d603/attachment.htm 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> multimob@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
> 
> 
> End of multimob Digest, Vol 13, Issue 4
> ***************************************
> 
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob



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