Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message

["Alvaro Fernandez" <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] en nombre de Hitoshi Asaeda
Enviado el: jue 15/05/2008 19:16
Para: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob