Hi Pete, That might be one of them we can take on DMM. Imagine, depending on deployment of existing IP multicasting standard entities, we can think of various use cases as presented in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sfigueiredo-multimob-use-case-dmm-03. Direct routing cannot be applied in every scenario.
After I came back from the trip, we (me and Sergio) have been working on this with priority. After carefully reviewing the requirement from the use cases, we'll announce it soon. Regards, Seil -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter McCann Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 9:53 PM To: Thomas C. Schmidt Cc: Stig Venaas; Behcet Sarikaya; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] Multicast requirements In the DMM case my assumption is that the anchor points are closer to the access routers and therefore are very likely to be in the same administrative domain. In these cases, joining the multicast group directly from the access router gives you the same access to the same multicast streams and so tunneling the multicast packets won't be necessary. -Pete Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > Dear Pete, > > multicast mobility management is a route adaptation problem. As in the > unicast case, mobility can only be treated by routing dynamics in > trivial cases (re-connect of a tunnel, re-association with next hop). > Otherwise it is unwise to delegate mobility adaptation to routing > protocols (-> OSPF, BGP ...). > > Accordingly, if DMM distributes mobility operations, handover > management should foresee easy interconnects to previous distribution > trees - both for receivers and for mobile multicast sources. > > I guess, if DMM people are careful, this is not a world-class item and > can be treated along the lines of unicast solutions - an isolated > multicast protocol treatment (as has been previously proposed from > MULTIMOB folks) seems inappropriate. In core PMIP, multicast treatment > has turned out to work out simply (-> RFC6224). > > Thus my argument: talk to the multicast guys before adopting a > solution ... and make the rest an easy game. > > Cheers, > > Thomas > > On 12.11.2012 21:39, Peter McCann wrote: >> jouni korhonen wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> This mail is to kick off the discussion on multicast requirement(s) >>> for the draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02 document. I hope we can nail >>> down the essential multicast requirement(s) as soon as possible. >> >> To me, multicast in a DMM environment means joining multicast groups >> directly from access routers. It means re-joining the multicast tree >> from a new access router after handover. I would hope that we can >> use existing MLD protocols between the MN and its first hop AR to >> accomplish this. >> >> -Pete >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
