Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message

"Desire Oulai" <desire.oulai@ericsson.com> Fri, 16 May 2008 13:39 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 4622028C18D; Fri, 16 May 2008 06:39:50 -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 AFA0528C182 for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2008 06:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 aUhv+RRcK8Z0 for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2008 06:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E983A67A1 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2008 06:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m4GDdeJI000955 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2008 08:39:42 -0500
Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 16 May 2008 08:39:40 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:39:39 -0400
Message-ID: <D373F8710ACBA6419BF0B7A5177691CC04850384@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.150.1210943289.4954.multimob@ietf.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [multimob] MLD HLD Message
Thread-Index: Aci3VeSZ+eRbw4k5RAifEbQxn96vhgAAxlnA
References: <mailman.150.1210943289.4954.multimob@ietf.org>
From: Desire Oulai <desire.oulai@ericsson.com>
To: multimob@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2008 13:39:40.0228 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A580040:01C8B75A]
Subject: Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message
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/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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: multimob-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org

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