Re: [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts
<Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de> Thu, 28 October 2010 10:38 UTC
Return-Path: <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>
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 A75133A6879 for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 H7Kjh7v1WK8Q for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891983A683C for <multimob@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2010 12:40:40 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.14]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:40:39 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:40:38 +0200
Message-ID: <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC802784802BB3DBA@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <326815.19541.qm@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts
Thread-Index: Act0lWrtXF5VL1TVTn6Xw0GzS8UjPAB42GhQ
References: <326815.19541.qm@web111404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
From: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
To: multimob@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Oct 2010 10:40:39.0103 (UTC) FILETIME=[8FD8A4F0:01CB768C]
Subject: Re: [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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/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: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:38:59 -0000
Dear all, Please find below some suggestions to the Multimob MLD tuning drafts: In general IMO both revised drafts have considerably improved. Thanks to the autors for their effort! Qin and Hui give a detailed introduction in wireless and mobile multicast isues which could be shortened a bit (BTW also fixed access bandwidth e.g. DSL in general is asymmetric - however for wireless it could also be a hybrid connection with e.g. broadcast e.g. DVB downlink and individual unicast e.g. WLAN uplink). I am not sure whether we need a comparison in detail between MLD/IGMP versions as only IGMPv3/MLDv2 is mentioned in the charter. Both drafts propose to use Explicit Tracking which can considerably reduce message traffic and speed up leave latency thus saving resources on both network and terminal side. I don't understand why channel changing at receiver side will speed up (3rd para on p.13, Wu et al.)- when a host has sent the Leave it stops listening to the old channel and can send Join to new group and start listening to them ... Whereas Hitoshi and Yogo propose specific figures for Timers and Counters (unfortunately without a reference to measurements verifying the optimization gain), Qin and Hui propose an adaptive Timer increase which seems to be more elegant - but doesn't this require a protocol change? 'Switching between Unicast and Multicast Queries' is implicitly also proposed by Hitoshi and Yogo ... Actually I don't see real controversary between both drafts but rather to be complementary to each other - however I am no expert on IGMP/MLD ... My overall suggestion is that merging both documents could provide a complete solution to be adopted by the WG. Further comments, please! Thanks! Best regards Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Behcet Sarikaya Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2010 00:36 An: Thomas C Schmidt; gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Alexandru Petrescu; multimob@ietf.org Betreff: [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts Just to bring to your attention the two drafts that have been revised: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-optimization-04 Please post your comments to the list. _______________________________________________ multimob mailing list multimob@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
- [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts Liuhui
- Re: [multimob] Revised MLD/IGMP Tuning drafts Hitoshi Asaeda