Re: [multimob] Comment on draft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07

[Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]>]

Hi Seil,

>> PIM-SM does not need to use PMIP policy routing at all.
>> Some MRIB entries are copied from MAG's RIB, other MRIB entries are
>> separately configured if needed. The MRIB entries may use M-Tunnel
>> established between MAG and LMA.
> 
> O.K. If my understainding is correct, your PIM-SM idea is based on not
> "PMIP tunnel" but "M-Tunnel" between MAG and LMA to choose one LMA using
> RPF algorithm.

If LMA is not an upstream router in MAG's RIB but if it should be in
MAG's MRIB, M-Tunnel is used to attach.

> And "M-Tunnel" information is in MAG's RIB.

Precisely, "M-Tunnel information is in MAG's MRIB".

> And if then, the upstream router of MAG has nothing to be an LMA, it can be
> another dedicated server for multicast support because it does not use PMIP
> tunnel. So, your idea appear to me as one of specific PIM-SM application
> method over dedicated multicast architecture.

I don't understand what "dedicated server" and "dedicated multicast
architecture" mean.

Let's see the case of direct routing.
If operator thinks streams for some group (or source) prefixes do not
need to go through LMA (as they are direct routing), MAG enabling
PIM-SM simply forwards PIM join messages to its adjacent multicast
router without M-Tunnel and can get the streams natively.

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda