Re: [multimob] Commentson draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

Hi all,

The requirement draft allows different multicast deployment models for PMIP. The problem is that the document is focusing also on operator requirements for IPTV deployment and it made confusion during boF meeting. So, I agree we should clarify basics and focus on the problem we are trying to solve with PMIP. A separate document, as suggested by Suresh, could help. I guess work over this document could start with Brian's threads, right?

Regards,
Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : multimob-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] De la
> part de Brian Haberman
> Envoyé : lundi 8 décembre 2008 21:08
> À : Niklas Neumann
> Cc : multimob@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [multimob] Commentson draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-
> 01.txt
> 
> Niklas,
>       I have two take aways from the BoF held in Minneapolis.  I will
> start two separate threads on the mailing list to discuss them, but at
> the high level they are:
> 
> 1. Rather than focus on optimizations (i.e., LMA to MAG), focus on the
> basics needed to deploy multicast in the current PMIPv6 architecture.
> 
> 2. Identify whether there is interest in investigating the performance
> of IGMP/MLD over wireless networks.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> 
> Niklas Neumann wrote:
> > Hy everybody,
> >
> > are we satisfied with the charter proposal and the problem statement? It
> > was my impression that a lot of people didn't agree with some of the
> > assumptions made there. For example, LMA vs. MAG as multicast endpoints.
> >
> > So maybe we should revise those documents and be a little more
> > conservative about the assumptions and statements made there. Something
> > along the lines of examining current multicast behavior in PMIP with the
> > goal of working on a best-practice guide or optimizations where needed.
> >
> > At least the discussion during the BOF showed, that the specifications
> > are not clear about multicast in PMIP and clarifications are needed.
> >
> > Best regards
> >   Niklas
> >
> >
> > Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>   At Multimob BoF last week it became clear that PMIPv6 requirements
> >> draft concentrated (probably) too much on the operating requirements
> >> and failed to state some simple traffic requirements.
> >>   I remember these traffic requirements were already stated in the pre
> >> BoF meeting we had in Dublin.
> >>   Any comments? Suresh?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Behcet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> multimob@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob