Hi Sergio, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Sérgio Figueiredo > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 6:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] Multicast requirements > > Hi Juan Carlos, > > On 11/12/2012 10:51 PM, Zuniga, Juan Carlos wrote: > > I believe the purpose of the discussion was to propose some > requirement > > text for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements, rather than getting in the > > solution space. > We're inline here. [JCZ] Good. We don't have time much time for religious battles, so better to propose text soon and get the requirements finalized. > > > I propose the following: > > > > > > Requirement: DMM solutions SHOULD support multicast services. In case > > the solution > > does not address multicast, a justification MUST be > provided > > for the > > omission of multicast from the solution. > > > > Motivation: The purpose of this requirement is to encourage people to > > consider the impacts of running multicast services in a > DMM > > environment > > from the beginning of the development, thereby avoiding > the > > need to > > make protocol extensions in the future to support this > kind of > > functionality. > This requirement paves the way for the ones I'm reviewing with Seil, > and > keeps IP multicast position, i.e. as a "module" that may or not be > included by operators. > [JCZ] I agree. However, talking about "modules" seems to me getting into the solution space, which should not be done in the requirements. > > Although the motivation is clear, this seems as a light requirement to > be achieved, in the sense that it can be easily transposed. Do you have > in mind what is a valid "justification" for not addressing multicast? > [JCZ] I don't have one and I believe it is up to the solution proponents to write one in case they do not support multicast. If they do, a justification would not be needed. The reason for using SHOULD is to allow for people that believe this is not needed to still bring their proposals forward, but giving the reasoning why they believe this is not needed.
Regards, Juan Carlos > > BR, > Sérgio > > > > Regards, > > > > Juan Carlos > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > >> Thomas C. Schmidt > >> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 5:06 PM > >> To: Peter McCann > >> Cc: Stig Venaas; Behcet Sarikaya; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [DMM] Multicast requirements > >> > >> Hi Pete, > >> > >> things would be simple, if topology were as described. > >> > >> Let's wait what dmm is birthing out ... and continue discussion > then. > >> In > >> any case, complex and incompatible "grand new schemes" do not appear > > to > >> make much sense. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Thomas > >> > >> On 12.11.2012 22:53, Peter McCann wrote: > >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
