Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Desiré.

We invite members to write solution drafts and submit them to Multimob. The sooner the better .

Suresh & Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Desire Oulai <[e-mail]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:08:14 AM
Subject: RE: [multimob] MLD HLD Message

 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
Hi,
 
  As I said, my view is that the primarily focus 
should be MIPv6 and PMIPv6. Then, DSMIPv6 and PMIPv6-IPv4 support could be 
tackled later in order to provide v4 support.
 
Best Regards
 
Desire

      From: Behcet Sarikaya   [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: May 20, 2008 10:35   AM
To: Desire Oulai; [e-mail]
Subject: Re:   [multimob] MLD HLD Message


  
    So   should Multimob concentrate on MIPv6, PMIPv6 and DSMIPv6 solutions? 
What   about v4 solutions?



Regards,

Behcet

  -----   Original Message ----
From: Desire Oulai   <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Friday,   May 16, 2008 8:39:39 AM
Subject: Re: [multimob] MLD HLD Message

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: [e-mail]   
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On   Behalf Of 
> [e-mail]
>   Sent: May 16, 2008 9:08 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> 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: [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
>   
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML   attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/multimob/attachments/20080516/61
>   14d603/attachment.htm 
> 
> ------------------------------
>   
> _______________________________________________
> multimob   mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>   
> 
> End of multimob Digest, Vol 13, Issue 4
>   ***************************************
>   
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing   list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

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