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
- [multimob] MLD HLD Message Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Alvaro Fernandez
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Desire Oulai
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message pierrick.seite
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Frank Xia
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Desire Oulai
- Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message Behcet Sarikaya