[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5757

   MobOpts Research Group                             Thomas C. Schmidt
   Internet Draft                                           HAW Hamburg
   Intended Status: Informational                    Matthias Waehlisch
   Expires: April 22, 2010                                     link-lab
                                                       Godred Fairhurst
                                                 University of Aberdeen
                                                       October 20, 2009


      Multicast Mobility in MIPv6: Problem Statement and Brief Survey
                  <draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-09.txt>



Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.






Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 1]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


Abstract

   This document discusses current mobility extensions to IP layer
   multicast. It describes problems arising from mobile group
   communication in general, the case of multicast listener mobility,
   and for mobile senders using Any Source Multicast and Source Specific
   Multicast. Characteristic aspects of multicast routing and deployment
   issues for fixed IPv6 networks are summarized. Specific properties
   and interplays with the underlying network access are surveyed with
   respect to the relevant technologies in the wireless domain. It
   outlines the principal approaches to multicast mobility, together
   with a comprehensive exploration of the mobile multicast problem and
   solution space. This document concludes with a conceptual roadmap for
   initial steps in standardization for use by future mobile multicast
   protocol designers. This document is a product of the IP Mobility
   Optimizations (MobOpts) Research Group.


Table of Contents


   1. Introduction and Motivation....................................3
     1.1 Document Scope..............................................4

   2. Problem Description............................................6
     2.1 General Issues..............................................6
     2.2 Multicast Listener Mobility.................................8
         2.2.1 Node & Application Perspective........................8
         2.2.2 Network Perspective...................................9
     2.3 Multicast Source Mobility..................................10
         2.3.1 Any Source Multicast Mobility........................10
         2.3.2 Source Specific Multicast Mobility...................11
     2.4 Deployment Issues..........................................12

   3. Characteristics of Multicast Routing Trees under Mobility.....13

   4. Link Layer Aspects............................................13
     4.1 General Background.........................................14
     4.2 Multicast for Specific Technologies........................14
         4.2.1 802.11 WLAN..........................................15
         4.2.2 802.16 WIMAX.........................................15
         4.2.3 3GPP/3GPP2...........................................17
         4.2.4 DVB-H / DVB-IPDC.....................................17
         4.2.5 TV Broadcast and Satellite Networks..................18
     4.3 Vertical Multicast Handovers...............................18

   5. Solutions.....................................................19
     5.1 General Approaches.........................................19
     5.2 Solutions for Multicast Listener Mobility..................20


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 2]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


         5.2.1 Agent Assistance.....................................20
         5.2.2 Multicast Encapsulation..............................21
         5.2.3 Hybrid Architectures.................................21
         5.2.4 MLD Extensions.......................................22
     5.3 Solutions for Multicast Source Mobility....................22
         5.3.1 Any Source Multicast Mobility Approaches.............23
         5.3.2 Source Specific Multicast Mobility Approaches........23

   6. Security Considerations.......................................24

   7. Summary and Future Steps......................................25

   8. IANA Considerations...........................................26

   Appendix A. Implicit Source Notification Options.................26

   References.......................................................27

   Acknowledgments..................................................34

   Author's Addresses...............................................34



1. Introduction and Motivation

   Group communication forms an integral building block of a wide
   variety of applications, ranging from content broadcasting and
   streaming, voice and video conferencing, collaborative environments
   and massive multiplayer gaming, up to the self-organization of
   distributed systems, services or autonomous networks. Network layer
   multicast support will be needed whenever globally distributed,
   scalable, serverless or instantaneous communication is required.

   The early idea of Internet multicasting [1] soon led to a wide
   adoption of Deering's host group model [2]. Broadband media delivery
   is emerging as a typical mass scenario that demands scalability and
   bandwidth efficiency from multicast routing. Although multicast
   mobility has been a concern for about ten years [3] and has led to
   numerous proposals, there is as yet no generally accepted solution.
   Multicast network support will be of particular importance to mobile
   environments, where users commonly share frequency bands of limited
   capacity. Reception of 'infotainment' streams may soon require wide
   deployment of mobile multicast services.

   Mobility in IPv6 [4] is standardized in the Mobile IPv6 RFCs [5,6],
   and addresses the scenario of network layer changes while moving
   between wireless domains. MIPv6 [5] only roughly defines multicast
   mobility for Mobile Nodes (MN), using a remote subscription approach


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 3]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   or through bi-directional tunneling via the Home Agent (HA). Remote
   subscription suffers from slow handovers, relying on multicast
   routing to adapt to handovers. Bi-directional tunneling introduces
   inefficient overhead and delay due to triangular forwarding, i.e.,
   instead of traveling on shortest paths, packets are routed through
   the Home Agent. Therefore these approaches have not been optimized
   for a large scale deployment. A mobile multicast service for a future
   Internet should provide 'close to optimal' routing at predictable and
   limited cost, offering robustness combined with a service quality
   compliant to real-time media distribution.

   Intricate multicast routing procedures are not easily extensible to
   satisfy the requirements for mobility. A client subscribed to a group
   while performing mobility handovers, requires the multicast traffic
   to follow to its new location; a mobile source needs the entire
   delivery tree to comply with or to adapt to its changing position.
   Significant effort has already been invested in protocol designs for
   mobile multicast receivers; only limited work has been dedicated to
   multicast source mobility, which poses the more delicate problem
   [65].

   In multimedia conference scenarios, games or collaborative
   environments each member commonly operates as a receiver and as a
   sender for multicast group communication. In addition, real-time
   communication such as conversational voice or video places severe
   temporal requirements on mobility protocols: Typical seamless
   handover scenarios are expected to limit disruptions or delay to less
   than 100 - 150 ms [7]. Jitter disturbances should not exceed 50 ms.
   Note that 100 ms is about the duration of a spoken syllable in real-
   time audio. This problem statement is intended to also be applicable
   to a range of other scenarios with a range of delivery requirements
   appropriate to the general Internet.

   This document represents the consensus of the MobOpts Research Group.
   It has been reviewed by the Research Group members active in the
   specific area of work. In addition, this document has been
   comprehensively reviewed by multiple active contributors to the IETF
   MEXT, MBONED, and PIM Working Groups.

1.1 Document Scope

   This document defines the problem scope for multicast mobility
   management, which may be elaborated in future work. It is subdivided
   to present the various challenges according to their originating
   aspects, and identifies existing proposals and major bibliographic
   references.

   When considering multicast node mobility, the network layer is
   complemented by some wireless access technology. Two basic scenarios


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 4]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   are of interest: Single-hop mobility (shown in figure 1.a) and multi-
   hop mobile routing (figure 1.b). Single-hop mobility is the focus of
   this document, which coincides with the perspective of MIPv6 [5]. The
   key issues of mobile multicast membership control, and the interplay
   of mobile and multicast routing will be illustrated using this simple
   scenario.

   Multi-hop network mobility is a subsidiary scenario. All major
   aspects are inherited from the single-hop problem, while additional
   complexity is incurred from traversing a mobile cloud. This may be
   solved by either encapsulation or flooding ([8] provides a general
   overview). Specific issues arising from (nested) tunneling or
   flooding, especially the preservation of address transparency,
   require treatment analogous to MIPv6.

                                           +------+           +------+
                                           |  MN  |  =====>   |  MN  |
                                           +------+           +------+
                                              |                  .
                                              |                  .
                                              |                  .
                                           +-------+          +-------+
                                           | LAR 1 |          | LAR 2 |
                                           +-------+          +-------+
                                                    \        /
                                                ***  ***  ***  ***
                                               *   **   **   **   *
       +------+           +------+            *                    *
       |  MN  |  =====>   |  MN  |             *  Mobile Network  *
       +------+           +------+            *                    *
          |                  .                 *   **   **   **   *
          |                  .                  ***  ***  ***  ***
          |                  .                  |                 .
       +-------+          +-------+         +-------+          +-------+
       | AR 1  |          | AR 2  |         | AR 1  |  =====>  | AR 2  |
       +-------+          +-------+         +-------+          +-------+
           |                |                   |                |
           ***  ***  ***  ***                   ***  ***  ***  ***
          *   **   **   **   *                 *   **   **   **   *
         *                    *               *                    *
          *  Fixed Internet  *                 *  Fixed Internet  *
         *                    *               *                    *
          *   **   **   **   *                 *   **   **   **   *
           ***  ***  ***  ***                   ***  ***  ***  ***

         a) Single-Hop Mobility                  b) Multi-Hop Mobility





Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 5]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


     Figure 1: Mobility Scenarios - A Mobile Node (MN) Directly
   attaching to Fixed Access Routers (AR) or attached via Local Access
   Routers (LAR)


2. Problem Description

2.1 General Issues

   Multicast mobility is a generic term, which subsumes a collection of
   distinct functions. First, multicast communication is divided into
   Any Source Multicast (ASM) [2] and Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
   [9,10]. Second, the roles of senders and receivers are distinct and
   asymmetric. Both may individually be mobile. Their interaction is
   facilitated by a multicast routing protocol such as DVMRP [11], PIM-
   SM/SSM [12,13], Bi-directional PIM [14], or inter-domain multicast
   prefix advertisements via MBGP [15]. IPv6 clients interact using the
   multicast listener discovery protocol (MLD and MLDv2) [16,17].

   Any solution for multicast mobility needs to take all of these
   functional blocks into account. It should enable seamless continuity
   of multicast sessions when moving from one IPv6 subnet to another. It
   is desired to preserve the multicast nature of packet distribution
   and approximate optimal routing. It should support per-flow handover
   for multicast traffic, because the properties and designations of
   flows can be distinct. Such distinctions may result from differing
   QoS/real-time requirements, but may also be caused by network
   conditions that may differ for different groups.

   The host group model extends the capability of the network layer
   unicast service. In common with the architecture of fixed networks,
   multicast mobility management should transparently utilize or
   smoothly extend the unicast functions of MIPv6 [5], its security
   extensions [6,18], its expediting schemes FMIPv6 [19] and HMIPv6
   [20], its context transfer protocols [21], its multihoming
   capabilities [22,23], emerging protocols like PMIPv6 [62] or future
   developments. From the perspective of an integrated mobility
   architecture, it is desirable to avoid multicast-specific as well as
   unicast-restricted solutions, whenever general approaches can be
   derived that can jointly support unicast and multicast.

   Multicast routing dynamically adapts to the network topology at the
   locations of the sender(s) and receiver(s) participating in a
   multicast session, which then may change under mobility. However,
   depending on the topology and the protocol in use, current multicast
   routing protocols may require a time close to seconds to converge
   following a change in receiver or sender location. This is far too
   slow to support seamless handovers for interactive or real-time media
   sessions. The actual temporal behavior strongly depends on the


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 6]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   multicast routing protocol in use, the configuration of routers, and
   on the geometry of the current distribution tree. A mobility scheme
   that re-adjusts routing, i.e., partially changes or fully
   reconstructs a multicast tree, is forced to comply with the time
   scale for protocol convergence. Specifically, it needs to consider a
   possible rapid movement of the mobile node, as this may occur at much
   higher rates than common protocol state updates.

   The mobility of hosts using IP multicast can impact the service
   presented to the higher-layer protocols. IP layer multicast packet
   distribution is an unreliable service that is bound to connectionless
   transport protocols. Where applications are sensitive to packet loss
   or jitter, countermeasures need to be performed (loss recovery,
   content recoding, concealment, etc) by the multicast transport or
   application. Mobile multicast handovers should not introduce
   significant additional packet drops. Due to statelessness, the bi-
   casting of multicast flows does not cause degradations at the
   transport layer, and applications should implement mechanisms to
   detect and correctly respond to duplicate datagrams. Nevertheless,
   individual application programs may not be robust with respect to
   repeated reception of duplicate streams.

   IP multicast applications can be designed to adapt the multicast
   stream to prevailing network conditions (adapting the sending rate to
   the level of congestion, adaptive tuning of clients in response to
   measured delay, dynamic suppression of feedback messages, etc). An
   adaptive application may also use more than one multicast group
   (e.g., layered multicast in which a client selects a set of multicast
   groups based on perceived available network capacity). A mobility
   handover may temporarily disrupt the operation of these higher-layer
   functions. The handover can invalidate assumptions about the
   forwarding path (e.g., acceptable delivery rate, round trip delay),
   which could impact an application and level of network traffic. Such
   effects need to be considered in the design of multicast applications
   and in the design of network-layer mobility. Specifically, mobility
   mechanisms need to be robust to transient packet loss that may result
   from invalid path expectations following a handover of an MN to a
   different network.

   Group addresses in general are location transparent, even though they
   may be scoped and methods can embed unicast prefixes or Rendezvous
   Point addresses [24]. The addresses of sources contributing to a
   multicast session are interpreted by the routing infrastructure and
   by receiver applications, which frequently are aware of source
   addresses. Multicast therefore inherits the mobility address duality
   problem of MIPv6 for source addresses: Addresses being a logical node
   identifier, i.e., the home address (HoA) on the one hand, and a
   topological locator, the care-of-address (CoA), on the other. At the
   network layer, the elements that comprise the delivery tree, i.e.,


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 7]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   multicast senders, forwarders and receivers, need to carefully
   account for address duality issues, e.g., by using binding caches,
   extended multicast states or signaling.

   Multicast sources in general operate decoupled from their receivers
   in the following sense: A multicast source sends packets to a group
   of receivers that are unknown at the network layer, and thus operates
   without a feedback channel. It neither has means to inquire about the
   properties of its delivery trees, nor is it able to learn about the
   network-layer state of its receivers. In the event of an inter-tree
   handover, a mobile multicast source therefore is vulnerable to losing
   connectivity to receivers without noticing. (Appendix A describes
   implicit source notification approaches). Applying a MIPv6 mobility
   binding update or return routability procedure will similarly break
   the semantic of a receiver group remaining unidentified by the source
   and thus cannot be applied in unicast analogy.

   Despite the complexity of the requirements, multicast mobility
   management should seek lightweight solutions with easy deployment.
   Realistic, sample deployment scenarios and architectures should be
   provided in future solution documents.

2.2 Multicast Listener Mobility

2.2.1 Node & Application Perspective

   A mobile multicast listener entering a new IP subnet requires
   multicast reception following a handover in real-time. This needs to
   transfer the multicast membership context from its old to its new
   point of attachment. This can either be achieved by (re-)
   establishing a tunnel or by transferring the MLD Listening State
   information of the MN's moving interface(s) to the new upstream
   router(s). In the latter case, it may encounter either one of the
   following conditions:
     o In the simplest scenario, packets of some, or all, of the
       subscribed groups of the mobile node are already received by one
       or several other group members in the new network, and thus
       multicast streams natively flow after the MN arrives at the new
       network.
     o The requested multicast service may be supported and enabled in
       the visited network, but the multicast groups under subscription
       may not be forwarded to it, e.g., groups may be scoped or
       administratively prohibited. This means that current distribution
       trees for the desired groups may only be re-joined at a (possibly
       large) routing distance.
     o The new network may not be multicast-enabled or the specific
       multicast service may be unavailable, e.g., unsupported or
       prohibited. This means that current distribution trees for the
       desired groups need to be re-joined at a large routing distance


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 8]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


       by (re) establishing a tunnel to a multicast-enabled network
       node.

   The problem of achieving seamless multicast listener handovers is
   thus threefold:
     o Ensure multicast reception, even in visited networks, without
       appropriate multicast support.
     o Minimize multicast forwarding delay to provide seamless
       and fast handovers for real-time services. Dependant on layer 2
       and 3 handover performance, the time available for multicast
       mobility operations is typically bound the total handover time
       left after IPv6 connectivity is regained. In real-time scenarios
       this may be significantly less than 100 ms.
     o Minimize packet loss and reordering that result from multicast
       handover management.

   Moreover, in many wireless regimes it is also desirable to minimize
   multicast-related signaling to preserve the limited resources of
   battery powered mobile devices and the constrained transmission
   capacities of the networks. This may lead to a desire to restrict MLD
   queries towards the MN. Multihomed MNs may ensure smooth handoffs by
   using a 'make-before-break' approach, which requires a per interface
   subscription, facilitated by an MLD JOIN operating on a pre-selected
   IPv6 interface.

   Encapsulation on the path between the upstream router and the
   receiver may result in MTU size conflicts, since path-MTU discovery
   is often not supported for multicast and can reduce scalability in
   networks with many different MTU sizes or introduce potential denial
   of service vulnerabilities (since the originating addresses of ICMPv6
   messages can not be verified for multicast). In the absence of
   fragmentation at tunnel entry points, this may prevent the group
   being forwarded to the destination.

2.2.2 Network Perspective

   The infrastructure providing multicast services is required to keep
   traffic following the MN without compromising network functionality.
   Mobility solutions thus have to face some immediate problems:

     o Realize native multicast forwarding, and where applicable
       conserve network resources and utilize link layer multipoint
       distribution to avoid data redundancy.
     o Activate link multipoint services, even if the MN performs
       only a layer 2 / vertical handover.
     o Ensure routing convergence, even when the MN moves rapidly
       and performs handovers at a high frequency.




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                 [Page 9]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


     o Avoid avalanche problems and stream multiplication (n-casting),
       which potentially result from replicated tunnel initiation or
       redundant forwarding at network nodes.

   There are additional implications for the infrastructure: In changing
   its point of attachment, an exclusive mobile receiver may cause
   initiation in the new network and termination of a group distribution
   service in the previous network. Mobility management may impact
   multicast routing by, e.g., erroneous subscriptions following
   predictive handover operations, or slow traffic termination at leaf
   nodes resulting from MLD query timeouts, or by departure of the MN
   from a previous network without leaving the subscribed groups.
   Finally, packet duplication and re-ordering may follow a change of
   topology.

2.3 Multicast Source Mobility

2.3.1 Any Source Multicast Mobility

   A node submitting data to an ASM group either forms the root of a
   source specific shortest path tree (SPT), distributing data towards a
   rendezvous point (RP) or receivers, or it forwards data directly down
   a shared tree, e.g., via encapsulated PIM Register messages, or using
   bi-directional PIM routing. Native forwarding along source specific
   delivery trees will be bound to the source's topological network
   address, due to reverse path forwarding (RPF) checks. A mobile
   multicast source moving to a new subnetwork is only able to either
   inject data into a previously established delivery tree, which may be
   a rendezvous point based shared tree, or to (re)initiate the
   construction of a multicast distribution tree for its new network
   location. In the latter case, the mobile sender will have to proceed
   without knowing whether the new tree has regained ability to forward
   traffic to the group, due to the decoupling of sender and receivers.

   A mobile multicast source must therefore provide address transparency
   at two layers: To comply with RPF checks, it has to use an address
   within the source field of the IPv6 basic header, which is in
   topological agreement with the employed multicast distribution tree.
   For application transparency the logical node identifier, commonly
   the HoA, must be presented as the packet source address to the
   transport layer at the receiver side.

   The address transparency and temporal handover constraints pose major
   problems for route optimizing mobility solutions. Additional issues
   arise from possible packet loss and from multicast scoping. A mobile
   source away from home must respect scoping restrictions that arise
   from its home and its visited location [5].




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 10]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   Intra-domain multicast routing may allow the use of shared trees that
   can reduce mobility-related complexity. A static rendezvous point may
   allow a mobile source to continuously send data to the group by
   encapsulating packets to the RP with its previous topologically
   correct or home source address. Intra-domain mobility is
   transparently provided by bi-directional shared domain-spanning
   trees, when using bi-directional PIM, eliminating the need for
   tunneling to the corresponding RP (in contrast to IPv4, IPv6 ASM
   multicast groups are associated with a specific RP/RPs).

   Issues arise in inter-domain multicast, whenever notification of
   source addresses is required between distributed instances of shared
   trees. A new CoA acquired after a mobility handover will necessarily
   be subject to inter-domain record exchange. In the presence of an
   embedded rendezvous point address [24], e.g., the primary rendezvous
   point for inter-domain PIM-SM will be globally appointed, and a newly
   attached mobile source can contact the RP without prior signaling
   (like a new source) and transmit data in the PIM register tunnel.
   Multicast route optimization (e.g., PIM 'shortcuts') will require
   multicast routing protocol operations equivalent to serving a new
   source.

2.3.2 Source Specific Multicast Mobility

   Source Specific Multicast has been designed for multicast senders
   with static source addresses. The source addresses in a client
   subscription to an SSM group is directly used to route
   identification. Any SSM subscriber is thus forced to know the
   topological address of the contributor to the group it wishes to
   join. The SSM source identification becomes invalid when the
   topological source address changes under mobility. Hence client
   implementations of SSM source filtering must be MIPv6 aware in the
   sense that a logical source identifier (HoA) is correctly mapped to
   its current topological correspondent (CoA).

   As a consequence, source mobility for SSM requires a conceptual
   treatment beyond the problem scope of mobile ASM. A listener
   subscribes to an (S,G) channel membership and routers establish an
   (S,G)-state shortest path tree rooted at source S, therefore any
   change of source addresses under mobility requires state updates at
   all routers on the upstream path and at all receivers in the group.
   On source handover, a new SPT needs to be established that will share
   paths with the previous SPT, e.g., at the receiver side. As the
   principle of multicast decoupling of a sender from its receivers
   holds for SSM, the client updates needed for switching trees become a
   severe burden.

   An SSM listener may subscribe to or exclude any specific multicast
   source, and thereby wants to rely on the topological correctness of


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 11]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   network operations. The SSM design permits trust in equivalence to
   the correctness of unicast routing tables. Any SSM mobility solution
   should preserve this degree of confidence. Binding updates for SSM
   sources thus should have to prove address correctness in the unicast
   routing sense, which is equivalent to binding update security with a
   correspondent node in MIPv6 [5].

   The above methods could add significant complexity to a solution for
   robust SSM mobility, which needs to converge to optimal routes and,
   for efficiency, is desired to avoid data encapsulation. Like ASM,
   handover management is a time-critical operation. The routing
   distance between subsequent points of attachment, the 'step size' of
   the mobile from previous to next designated router, may serve as an
   appropriate measure of complexity [25,26].

   Finally, Source Specific Multicast has been designed as a light-
   weight approach to group communication. In adding mobility
   management, it is desirable to preserve the leanness of SSM by
   minimizing additional signaling overhead.

2.4 Deployment Issues

   IP multicast deployment in general has been slow over the past 15
   years, even though all major router vendors and operating systems
   offer implementations that support multicast [27]. While many
   (walled) domains or enterprise networks operate point-to-multipoint
   services, IP multicast roll-out is currently limited in public inter-
   domain scenarios [28]. A dispute arose on the appropriate layer,
   where group communication service should reside, and the focus of the
   research community turned towards application layer multicast. This
   debate on "efficiency versus deployment complexity" now overlaps the
   mobile multicast domain [29]. Garyfalos and Almeroth [30] derived
   from fairly generic principles that when mobility is introduced, the
   performance gap between IP and application layer multicast widens in
   different metrics up to a factor of four.

   Facing deployment complexity, it is desirable that any solution for
   mobile multicast does not change the routing protocols. Mobility
   management in such a deployment-friendly scheme should preferably be
   handled at edge nodes, preserving a mobility-agnostic routing
   infrastructure. Future research needs to search for such simple,
   infrastructure transparent solutions, even though there are
   reasonable doubts, whether this can be achieved in all cases.

   Nevertheless, multicast services in mobile environments may soon
   become indispensable, when multimedia distribution services such as
   DVB-H [31,32] or IPTV develop a strong business case for portable IP-
   based devices. As IP mobility becomes an important service and as
   efficient link utilization is of a larger impact in costly radio


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 12]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   environments, the evolution of multicast protocols will naturally
   follow mobility constraints.


3. Characteristics of Multicast Routing Trees under Mobility

   Multicast distribution trees have been studied from a focus of
   network efficiency. Grounded on empirical observations Chuang and
   Sirbu [33] proposed a scaling power-law for the total number of links
   in a multicast shortest path tree with m receivers (proportional to
   m^k). The authors consistently identified the scale factor to attain
   the independent constant k = 0.8. The validity of such universal,
   heavy-tailed distribution suggests that multicast shortest path trees
   are of self-similar nature with many nodes of small, but few of
   higher degrees. Trees consequently would be shaped rather tall than
   wide.

   Subsequent empirical and analytical work [34,35] debated the
   applicability of the Chuang and Sirbu scaling law. Van Mieghem et al.
   [34] proved that the proposed power law cannot hold for an increasing
   Internet or very large multicast groups, but is indeed applicable for
   moderate receiver numbers and the current Internet size of N = 10^5
   core nodes. Investigating self-similarity Janic and Van Mieghem [36]
   semi-empirically substantiated that multicast shortest path trees in
   the Internet can be modeled with reasonable accuracy by uniform
   recursive trees (URT) [37], provided m remains small compared to N.

   The mobility perspective on shortest path trees focuses on their
   alteration, i.e., the degree of topological changes induced by
   movement. For receivers, and more interestingly for sources this may
   serve as an outer measure for routing complexity. Mobile listeners
   moving to neighboring networks will only alter tree branches
   extending over a few hops. Source specific multicast trees
   subsequently generated from source handover steps are not
   independent, but highly correlated. They most likely branch to
   identical receivers at one or several intersection points. By the
   self-similar nature, the persistent sub-trees (of previous and next
   distribution tree), rooted at any such intersection point, exhibit
   again the scaling law behavior, are tall-shaped with nodes of mainly
   low degree and thus likely to coincide. Tree alterations under
   mobility have been studied in [26], both analytically and by
   simulations. It was found that even in large networks and for
   moderate receiver numbers more than 80 % of the multicast router
   states remain invariant under a source handover.


4. Link Layer Aspects




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 13]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


4.1 General Background

   Scalable group data distribution has the highest potential in edge
   networks, where large numbers of end systems reside. Consequently, it
   is not surprising that most LAN network access technologies natively
   support point-to-multipoint or multicast services. Wireless access
   technologies inherently support broadcast/multicast at L2 and operate
   on a shared medium with limited frequency and bandwidth.

   Several aspects need consideration: First, dissimilar network access
   radio technologies cause distinct group traffic transmissions. There
   are:

    o connection-less link services of a broadcast type, which mostly
      are bound to limited reliability;

    o connection-oriented link services of a point-to-multipoint type,
      which require more complex control and frequently exhibit reduced
      efficiency;

    o connection-oriented link services of a broadcast type, which are
      restricted to unidirectional data transmission.

   In addition, multicast may be distributed via multiple point-to-point
   unicast links without use of a dedicated multipoint radio channel. A
   fundamental difference between unicast and group transmission arises
   from power management. Some radio technologies adjust transmit power
   to be as small as possible based on link-layer feedback from the
   receiver which is not done in multipoint mode. They consequently
   incur a 'multicast tax', making multicast less efficient than unicast
   unless the number of receivers is larger than some threshold.

   Second, point-to-multipoint service activation at the network access
   layer requires a mapping mechanism from network layer requests. This
   function is commonly achieved by L3 awareness, i.e., IGMP/MLD
   snooping [70] or proxy [38], which occasionally is complemented by
   Multicast VLAN Registration (MVR). MVR allows sharing of a single
   multicast IEEE 802.1Q Virtual LAN in the network, while subscribers
   remain in separate VLANs. This layer 2 separation of multicast and
   unicast traffic can be employed as a workaround for point-to-point
   link models to establish a common multicast link.

   Third, an address mapping between the layers is needed for common
   group identification. Address resolution schemes depend on framing
   details for the technologies in use, but commonly cause a significant
   address overlap at the lower layer.

4.2 Multicast for Specific Technologies



Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 14]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


4.2.1 802.11 WLAN

   IEEE 802.11 WLAN is a broadcast network of Ethernet type. This
   inherits multicast address mapping concepts from 802.3. In
   infrastructure mode, an access point operates as a repeater, only
   bridging data between the Base (BSS) and the Extended Service Set
   (ESS). A mobile node submits multicast data to an access point in
   point-to-point acknowledged unicast mode (when the ToDS bit is set).
   An access point receiving multicast data from a MN simply repeats
   multicast frames to the BSS and propagates them to the ESS as
   unacknowledged broadcast. Multicast frames received from the ESS
   receive similar treatment.

   Multicast frame delivery has the following characteristics:

    o As an unacknowledged service it offers limited reliability.
      Frames (and hence packet) loss arise from interference,
      collision, or time-varying channel properties.

    o Data distribution may be delayed, as unicast power saving
      synchronization via Traffic Indication Messages (TIM) does not
      operate in multicast mode. Access points buffer multicast packets
      while waiting for a larger DTIM interval, whenever stations use
      the power saving mode.

    o Multipoint data may cause congestion, because the distribution
      system floods multicast, without further control. All access
      points of the same subnet replicate multicast frames.

   To limit or prevent the latter, many vendors have implemented a
   configurable rate limit for forwarding multicast packets.
   Additionally, an IGMP/MLD snooping or proxy may be active at the
   bridging layer between the BSS and the ESS or at switches
   interconnecting access points.

4.2.2 802.16 WIMAX

   IEEE 802.16 WIMAX combines a family of connection-oriented radio
   transmission services that can operate in single-hop point-to-
   multipoint (PMP) or in mesh mode. The latter does not support
   multipoint transmission and currently has no deployment. PMP operates
   between Base and Subscriber Stations in distinguished, unidirectional
   channels. The channel assignment is controlled by the Base Station,
   which assigns channel IDs (CIDs) within service flows to the
   Subscriber Stations. Service flows may provide an optional Automatic
   Repeat Request (ARQ) to improve reliability and may operate in point-
   to-point or point-to-multipoint (restricted to downlink and without
   ARQ) mode.



Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 15]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   A WIMAX Base Station operates as a full-duplex L2 switch, with
   switching based on CIDs. Two IPv6 link models for mobile access
   scenarios exist: A shared IPv6 prefix for IP over Ethernet CS [39]
   provides MAC separation within a shared prefix. A second, point-to-
   point link model [40] is recommended in the IPv6 Convergence Sublayer
   [41], which treats each connection to a mobile node as a single link.
   The point-to-point link model conflicts with a consistent group
   distribution at the IP layer when using a shared medium (cf. section
   4.1 for MVR as a workaround).

   To invoke a multipoint data channel, the base station assigns a
   common CID to all Subscriber Stations in the group. An IPv6 multicast
   address mapping to these 16 bit IDs is proposed by copying either the
   4 lowest bits, while sustaining the scope field, or by utilizing the
   8 lowest bits derived from Multicast on Ethernet CS [42]. For
   selecting group members, a Base Station may implement IGMP/MLD
   snooping or proxy as foreseen in 802.16e-2005 [43].

   A Subscriber Station multicasts IP packets to a Base Station as a
   point-to-point unicast stream. When the IPv6 CS is used, these are
   forwarded to the upstream access router. The access router (or the
   Base Station for IP over Ethernet CS) may send downstream multicast
   packets by feeding them to the multicast service channel. On
   reception, a Subscriber Station cannot distinguish multicast from
   unicast streams at the link layer.

   Multicast services have the following characteristics:

    o Multicast CIDs are unidirectional and available only in the
      downlink direction. Thus a native broadcast-type forwarding model
      is not available.

    o The mapping of multicast addresses to CIDs needs standardization,
      since different entities (Access Router, Base Station) may have
      to perform the mapping.

    o CID collisions for different multicast groups may occur due
      to the short ID space. This can result in several point-to-
      multipoint groups sharing the same CID, reducing the ability of
      a receiver to filter unwanted L2 traffic.

    o The point-to-point link model for mobile access contradicts a
      consistent mapping of IP layer multicast onto 802.16
      point-to-multipoint services.

    o Multipoint channels cannot operate ARQ service and thus
      experience a reduced reliability.




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 16]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


4.2.3 3GPP/3GPP2

   The 3GPP System architecture spans a circuit switched (CS) and a
   packet switched (PS) domain, the latter General Packet Radio Services
   (GPRS) incorporates the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) [44]. The 3GPP
   PS is connection-oriented and based on the concept of Packet Data
   Protocol (PDP) Contexts. PDPs define point-to-point links between the
   Mobile Terminal and the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN). Internet
   service types are PPP, IPv4 and IPv6, where the recommendation for
   IPv6 address assignment associates a prefix to each (primary) PDP
   context [45].

   In UMTS Rel. 6 the IMS was extended to include Multimedia Broadcast
   and Multicast Services (MBMS). A point-to-multipoint GPRS connection
   service is operated on radio links, while the gateway service to
   Internet multicast is handled at the IGMP/MLD-aware GGSN. Local
   multicast packet distribution is used within the GPRS IP backbone
   resulting in the common double encapsulation at GGSN: global IP
   multicast datagrams over GTP (with multipoint TID) over local IP
   multicast.

   The 3GPP MBMS has the following characteristics:

    o There is no immediate layer 2 source-to-destination transition,
      resulting in transit of all multicast traffic at the GGSN.

    o As GGSN commonly are regional, distant entities, triangular
      routing and encapsulation may cause a significant degradation of
      efficiency.

   In 3GPP2, the MBMS has been extended to the Broadcast and Multicast
   Service (BCMCS) [46], which on the routing layer operates very
   similar to MBMS. In both 3GPP and 3GPP2 multicast can either be sent
   using point-to-point (PTP) or point-to-multipoint (PTM) tunnels, and
   there is support for switching between PTP and PTM. PTM uses an
   unidirectional common channel, operating in unacknowledged mode
   without adjustment of power levels and no reporting on lost packets.

4.2.4 DVB-H / DVB-IPDC

   Digital Video Broadcasting for Handhelds (DVB-H) is a unidirectional
   physical layer broadcasting specification for the efficient delivery
   of broadband, IP-encapsulated data streams, and published as an ETSI
   standard [47] (see http://www.dvb-h.org). This uses multi-protocol
   encapsulation (MPE) to transport IP packets over an MPEG-2 Transport
   Stream (TS) with link forward error correction (FEC). Each stream is
   identified by a 13 bit TS ID (PID), which together with a multiplex
   service ID, is associated with IPv4 or IPv6 addresses [48] and used
   for selective traffic filtering at receivers. Upstream channels may


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 17]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   complement DVB-H using other transmission technologies. The IP
   Datacast Service, DVB-IPDC [31] specifies a set of applications that
   can use the DVB-H transmission network.

   Multicast distribution services are defined by a mapping of groups
   onto appropriate PIDs, which is managed at the IP Encapsulator [49].
   To increase flexibility and avoid collisions, this address resolution
   is facilitated by dynamic tables, provided within the self-contained
   MPEG-2 TS. Mobility is supported in the sense that changes of cell
   ID, network ID or Transport Stream ID are foreseen [50]. A multicast
   receiver thus needs to re-locate the multicast services it is
   subscribed to, which is to be done in the synchronization phase, and
   update its service filters. Its handover decision may depend on
   service availability. An active service subscription (multicast join)
   requires initiation at the IP Encapsulator / DVB-H Gateway, which
   cannot be signaled in a pure DVB-H network.

4.2.5 TV Broadcast and Satellite Networks

   IP multicast may be enabled in TV broadcast networks, including those
   specified by DVB, ATSC, and related standards [49]. These standards
   are also used for one and two-way satellite IP services. Networks
   based on the MPEG-2 Transport Stream may support either the multi-
   protocol encapsulation (MPE) or the unidirectional lightweight
   encapsulation (ULE) [51]. The second generation DVB standards allow
   the Transport Stream to be replaced with a Generic Stream, using the
   generic stream encapsulation (GSE) [52]. These encapsulation formats
   all support multicast operation.

   In MPEG-2 transmission networks, multicast distribution services are
   defined by a mapping of groups onto appropriate PIDs, which is
   managed at the IP Encapsulator [49]. The addressing issues resemble
   those for DVB-H (section 4.2.4) [48]. The issues for using GSE
   resemble those for ULE (except the PID is not available as a
   mechanism for filtering traffic). Networks that provide bidirectional
   connectivity may allow active service subscription (multicast join)
   to initiate forwarding from the upstream IP Encapsulator / gateway.
   Some kind of filtering can be achieved using the Input Stream
   Identifier (ISI) field.


4.3 Vertical Multicast Handovers

   A mobile multicast node may change its point of layer 2 attachment
   within homogeneous access technologies (horizontal handover) or
   between heterogeneous links (vertical handover). In either case, a
   layer 3 network change may or may not take place, but multicast-aware
   links always need information about group traffic demands.
   Consequently, a dedicated context transfer of multicast subscriptions


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 18]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   is required at the network access. Such Media Independent Handover
   (MIH) is addressed in IEEE 802.21 [53], but is relevant also beyond
   IEEE protocols. Mobility services transport for MIH are required as
   an abstraction for layer 2 multicast service transfer in an Internet
   context [54] and are specified in [55].

   MIH needs to assist in more than service discovery: There is a need
   for complex, media dependent multicast adaptation, a possible absence
   of MLD signaling in L2-only transfers, and requirements originating
   from predictive handovers, a multicast mobility services transport
   needs to be sufficiently comprehensive and abstract to initiate a
   seamless multicast handoff at network access.

   Functions required for MIH include:

    o Service discovery.
    o Service context transformation.
    o Service context transfer.
    o Service invocation.


5. Solutions

5.1 General Approaches

   Three approaches to mobile multicast are common [56]:

    o Bi-directional Tunneling, in which the mobile node tunnels all
      multicast data via its home agent. This fundamental multicast
      solution hides all movement and results in static multicast
      trees. It may be employed transparently by mobile multicast
      listeners and sources, at the cost of triangular routing and
      possibly significant performance degradation from widely spanned
      data tunnels.

    o Remote Subscription forces the mobile node to re-initiate
      multicast distribution following handover, e.g., by submitting an
      MLD listener report to the subnet where a receiver attaches. This
      approach of tree discontinuation relies on multicast dynamics to
      adapt to network changes. It not only results in significant
      service disruption, but leads to mobility-driven changes of
      source addresses, and thus cannot support session persistence
      under multicast source mobility.

    o Agent-based solutions attempt to balance between the previous two
      mechanisms. Static agents typically act as local tunneling
      proxies, allowing for some inter-agent handover when the mobile
      node moves. A decelerated inter-tree handover, i.e. 'tree
      walking', will be the outcome of agent-based multicast mobility,


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 19]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


      where some extra effort is needed to sustain session persistence
      through address transparency of mobile sources.

   MIPv6 [5] introduces bi-directional tunneling as well as remote
   subscription as minimal standard solutions. Various publications
   suggest utilizing remote subscription for listener mobility only,
   while advising bi-directional tunneling as the solution for source
   mobility. Such an approach avoids the 'tunnel convergence' or
   'avalanche' problem [56], which refers to the responsibility of the
   home agent to multiply and encapsulate packets for many receivers of
   the same group, even if they are located within the same subnetwork.
   However, this suffers from the drawback that multicast communication
   roles are not explicitly known at the network layer and may change
   unexpectedly.

   None of the above approaches address SSM source mobility, except the
   use of bi-directional tunneling.

5.2 Solutions for Multicast Listener Mobility

5.2.1 Agent Assistance

   There are proposals for agent-assisted handover for host-based
   mobility, which complement the unicast real-time mobility
   infrastructure of Fast MIPv6 [19], the M-FMIPv6 [57,58], and of
   Hierarchical MIPv6 [20], the M-HMIPv6 [59], and to context transfer
   [60], which have been thoroughly analyzed in [25,61].

   All these solutions presume the context state was stored within a
   network node that is reachable before and after a move. But there
   could be cases were the MN is no longer in contact with the previous
   network, when at the new location. In this case, the network itself
   cannot assist in the context transfer. Such scenarios may occur when
   moving from one (walled) operator to another and will require a
   backwards compatible way to recover from loss of connectivity and
   context based on the node alone.

   Network based mobility management, PMIPv6 [62], is multicast
   transparent in the sense that the MN experiences a point-to-point
   home link fixed at its (static) Local Mobility Anchor (LMA). This
   virtual home link is composed of a unicast tunnel between the LMA and
   the current Mobile Access Gateway (MAG), and a point-to-point link
   connecting the current MAG to the MN. A PMIPv6 domain thereby
   inherits MTU-size problems from spanning tunnels at the receiver
   site. Furthermore, two avalanche problem points can be identified:
   The LMA may be required to tunnel data to a large number of MAGs,
   while a MAG may be required to forward the same multicast stream to
   many MNs via individual point-to-point links [63]. Future
   optimizations and extensions to shared links preferably adapt native


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 20]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   multicast distribution towards the edge network, possibly using a
   local routing option, including context transfer between access
   gateways to assist IP-mobility-agnostic MNs.

   An approach based on dynamically negotiated inter-agent handovers is
   presented in [64]. Aside from IETF work, numerous publications
   present proposals for seamless multicast listener mobility, e.g. [65]
   provides a comprehensive overview of the work prior to 2004.

5.2.2 Multicast Encapsulation

   Encapsulation of multicast data packets is an established method to
   shield mobility and to enable access to remotely located data
   services, e.g., streams from the home network. Applying generic
   packet tunneling in IPv6 [66] using a unicast point-to-point method
   will also allow multicast-agnostic domains to be transited, but does
   inherit the tunnel convergence problem and may result in traffic
   multiplication.

   Multicast enabled environments may take advantage of point-to-
   multipoint encapsulation, i.e., generic packet tunneling using an
   appropriate multicast destination address in the outer header. Such
   multicast-in-multicast encapsulated packets similarly enable
   reception of remotely located streams, but do not suffer from the
   scaling overhead from using unicast tunnels.

   The tunnel entry point performing encapsulation should provide
   fragmentation of data packets to avoid issues resulting from MTU size
   constraints within the network(s) supporting the tunnel(s).

5.2.3 Hybrid Architectures

   There has been recent interest in seeking method that avoid the
   complexity at the Internet core network, e.g. application layer and
   overlay proposals for (mobile) multicast. The possibility of
   integrating multicast distribution on the overlay into the network
   layer is also being considered by the IRTF Scalable Adaptive
   Multicast (SAM) Research Group.

   An early hybrid architecture using reactively operating proxy-
   gateways located at the Internet edges was introduced by Garyfalos
   and Almeroth [30]. The authors presented an Intelligent Gateway
   Multicast as a bridge between mobility-aware native multicast
   management in access networks and mobility group distribution
   services in the Internet core, which may be operated on the network
   or application layer. The Hybrid Shared Tree approach [67] introduced
   a mobility-agnostic multicast backbone on the overlay.




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 21]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   Current work in the SAM RG is developing general architectural
   approaches for hybrid multicast solutions [68] and a common multicast
   API for a transparent access of hybrid multicast [69] that will
   require a detailed design in future work.

5.2.4 MLD Extensions

   The default timer values specified in MLD [17] were not designed for
   the mobility context. This results in a slow reaction of the
   multicast routing infrastructure (including layer-3-aware access
   devices [70]) following a client leave. This may be a disadvantage
   for wireless links, where performance may be improved by carefully
   tuning the Query Interval. Some vendors have optimized performance by
   implementing a listener node table at the access router that can
   eliminate the need for query timeouts when receiving leave messages
   (explicit receiver tracking).

   A MN operating predictive handover, e.g., using FMIPv6, may
   accelerate multicast service termination when leaving the previous
   network by submitting an early Done message before handoff. MLD
   router querying will allow the multicast forwarding state to be
   restored in case of an erroneous prediction (i.e., an anticipated
   move to a network that has not taken place). Backward context
   transfer may otherwise ensure a leave is signaled. A further
   optimization was introduced by Jelger and Noel [71] for the special
   case when the HA is a multicast router. A Done message received
   through a tunnel from the mobile end node (through a point-to-point
   link directly connecting the MN, in general), should not initiate
   standard MLD membership queries (with a subsequent timeout). Such
   explicit treatment of point-to-point links will reduce traffic and
   accelerate the control protocol. Explicit tracking will cause
   identical protocol behavior.

   While away from home, a MN may wish to rely on a proxy or 'standby'
   multicast membership service, optionally provided by a HA or proxy
   router. Such functions rely on the ability to restart fast packet
   forwarding; it may be desirable for the proxy router to remain part
   of the multicast delivery tree, even when transmission of group data
   is paused. To enable such proxy control, the authors in [71] propose
   an extension to MLD, introducing a Listener Hold message that is
   exchanged between the MN and the HA. This idea was developed in [59]
   to propose multicast router attendance control, allowing for a
   general deployment of group membership proxies. Some currently
   deployed IPTV solutions use such a mechanism in combination with a
   recent (video) frame buffer, to enable fast channel switching between
   several IPTV multicast flows (zapping).

5.3 Solutions for Multicast Source Mobility



Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 22]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


5.3.1 Any Source Multicast Mobility Approaches

   Solutions for multicast source mobility can be divided into three
   categories:

    o Statically Rooted Distribution Trees. These methods follow a
      shared tree approach. Romdhani et al. [72] proposed employing
      the Rendezvous Points of PIM-SM as mobility anchors. Mobile
      senders tunnel their data to these "Mobility-aware Rendezvous
      Points" (MRPs). When restricted to a single domain, this scheme is
      equivalent to bi-directional tunneling. Focusing on interdomain
      mobile multicast, the authors designed a tunnel- or SSM-based
      backbone distribution of packets between MRPs.

    o Reconstruction of Distribution Trees. Several authors have
      proposed the construction of a completely new distribution tree
      after the movement of a mobile source and therefore have to
      compensate for the additional routing (tree-building) delay.
      M-HMIPv6 [59] tunnels data into a previously established tree
      rooted at mobility anchor points to compensate for the routing
      delay until a protocol dependent timer expires. The RBMoM
      protocol [73] introduces an additional Multicast Agent (MA) that
      advertises its service range. A mobile source registers with
      the closest MA and tunnels data through it. When moving out of
      the previous service range, it will perform MA discovery, a re-
      registration and continue data tunneling with a newly established
      Multicast Agent in its new current vicinity.

    o Tree Modification Schemes. In the case of DVMRP routing,
      Chang and Yen [74] propose an algorithm to extend the root of a
      given delivery tree for incorporating a new source location in
      ASM. The authors rely on a complex additional signaling protocol
      to fix DVMRP forwarding states and heal failures in the reverse
      path forwarding (RPF) checks.

5.3.2 Source Specific Multicast Mobility Approaches

   The shared tree approach of [72] has been extended to support SSM
   mobility by introducing the HoA address record to the Mobility-aware
   Rendezvous Points. The MRPs operate using extended multicast routing
   tables that simultaneously hold the HoA and CoA and thus can
   logically identify the appropriate distribution tree. Mobility thus
   may re-introduce the concept of rendezvous points to SSM routing.

   Approaches for reconstructing SPTs in SSM rely on a client
   notification to establish new router state. It also needs to preserve
   address transparency for the client. Thaler [75] proposed introducing
   a binding cache and providing source address transparency analogous
   to MIPv6 unicast communication. Initial session announcements and


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 23]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   changes of source addresses are distributed periodically to clients
   via an additional multicast control tree rooted at the home agent.
   Source tree handovers are then activated on listener requests.

   Jelger and Noel [76] suggest handover improvements employing anchor
   points within the source network, supporting continuous data
   reception during client initiated handovers. Client updates are
   triggered out of band, e.g. by SDR/SAP [77]. Receiver-oriented tree
   construction in SSM thus remains unsynchronized with source
   handovers.

   To address the synchronization problem at the routing layer, several
   proposals have focused on direct modification of the distribution
   trees. A recursive scheme may use loose unicast source routes with
   branch points, based on a multicast Hop-by-Hop protocol. Vida et al
   [78] optimized SPT for a moving source on the path between the source
   and first branching point. O'Neill [79] suggested a scheme to
   overcome RPF check failures that originate from multicast source
   address changes with a rendezvous point scenario by introducing
   extended routing information, which accompanies data in a Hop-by-Hop
   option "RPF redirect" header. The Tree Morphing approach of Schmidt
   and Waehlisch [80] used source routing to extend the root of a
   previously established SPT, thereby injecting router state updates in
   a Hop-by-Hop option header. Using extended RPF checks the elongated
   tree autonomously initiates shortcuts and smoothly reduces to a new
   SPT rooted at the relocated source. An enhanced version of this
   protocol abandoned the initial source routing and could be proved to
   comply with rapid source movement [81]. Lee et al. [82] introduced a
   state-update mechanism for re-using major parts of established
   multicast trees. The authors start from an initially established
   distribution state, centered at the mobile source's home agent. A
   mobile leaving its home network will signal a multicast forwarding
   state update on the path to its home agent and, subsequently,
   distribution states according to the mobile source's new CoA along
   the previous distribution tree. Multicast data is then intended to
   flow natively using triangular routes via the elongation and an
   updated tree centered on the home agent. Based on Host Identity
   Protocol identifiers, Kovacshazi and Vida [83] introduce multicast
   routing states that remain independent of IP addresses. Drawing upon
   a similar scaling law argument, parts of these states may then be re-
   used after source address changes.


6. Security Considerations

   This document discusses multicast extensions to mobility. It does not
   define new methods or procedures. Security issues arise from source
   address binding updates, specifically in the case of source specific
   multicast. Threats of hijacking unicast sessions will result from any


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 24]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   solution jointly operating binding updates for unicast and multicast
   sessions.

   Multicast protocols exhibit a risk of network-based traffic
   amplification. For example, an attacker may abuse mobility signaling
   to inject unwanted traffic into a previously established multicast
   distribution infrastructure. These threats are partially mitigated by
   reverse path forwarding checks by multicast routers. However, a
   multicast or mobility agent that explicitly replicates multicast
   streams, e.g., Home Agent that n-casts data, may be vulnerable to
   denial of service attacks. In addition to source authentication, a
   rate control of the replicator may be required to protect the agent
   and the downstream network.

   Mobility protocols need to consider the implications and requirements
   for Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA). A MN may have
   been authorized to receive a specific multicast group when using one
   mobile network, but this may not be valid when attaching to a
   different network. In general, the AAA association for an MN may
   change between attachments, or may be individually chosen prior to
   network (re-)association. The most appropriate network path may be
   one that satisfies user preferences, e.g., to use/avoid a specific
   network, minimize monetary cost, etc, rather than one that only
   minimizes the routing cost. Consequently, AAA bindings may need to be
   considered when performing context transfer.

   Admission control issues may arise with new CoA source addresses are
   introduced to SSM channels [84]. Due to lack of feedback, the
   admission [85] and binding updates [86] of mobile multicast sources
   require autonomously verifiable authentication. This can be achieved
   by, for instance, Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs).

   Modification to IETF protocols (e.g. routing, membership, session
   announcement and control) as well as the introduction of new
   entities, e.g., multicast mobility agents, can introduce security
   vulnerabilities and require consideration of issues such as
   authentication of network entities, methods to mitigate denial of
   service (in terms of unwanted network traffic, unnecessary
   consumption of router/host resources and router/host state/buffers).
   Future solutions must therefore analyze and address the security
   implications of supporting mobile multicast.


7. Summary and Future Steps

   This document is intended to provide a basis for the future design of
   mobile IPv6 multicast methods and protocols by:




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 25]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


        o providing a structured overview of the problem space that
          multicast and mobility jointly generate at the IPv6 layer;

        o referencing the implications and constraints arising from
          lower and upper layers, and from deployment;

        o briefly surveying conceptual ideas of currently available
          solutions;

        o including a comprehensive bibliographic reference base.

   It is recommended that future steps towards extending mobility
   services to multicast proceed to first solve the following problems:

     1. Ensure seamless multicast reception during handovers,
        meeting the requirements of mobile IPv6 nodes and networks.
        Thereby address the problems of home subscription without
        n-tunnels, as well as native multicast reception in those
        visited networks, which offer a group communication service.

     2. Integrate multicast listener support into unicast mobility
        management schemes and architectural entities to define a
        consistent mobility service architecture, providing equal
        supporting for unicast and multicast communication.

     3. Provide basic multicast source mobility by designing
        address duality management at end nodes.


8. IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations introduced by this draft.


Appendix A. Implicit Source Notification Options

   An IP multicast source transmits data to a group of receivers without
   requiring any explicit feedback from the group. Sources therefore are
   unaware at the network-layer of whether any receivers have subscribed
   to the group, and unconditionally send multicast packets which
   propagate in the network to the first-hop router (often known in PIM
   as the designated router). There have been attempts to implicitly
   obtain information about the listening group members, e.g. extending
   an IGMP/MLD querier to inform the source of the existence of
   subscribed receivers. Multicast Source Notification of Interest
   Protocol (MSNIP) [87] was such a suggested method that allowed a
   multicast source to querying the upstream designated router. However,
   this work did not progress within the IETF mboned working group and
   was terminated by IETF.


Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 26]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009



   Multicast sources may also be controlled at the session or transport
   layer using end-to-end control protocols. A majority of real-time
   applications employ the Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) [88].  The
   accompanying control protocol RTCP [81] allows receivers to report
   information about multicast group membership and associated
   performance data. In multicast, the RTCP reports are submitted to the
   same group and thus may be monitored by the source to monitor, manage
   and control multicast group operations. The Real Time Streaming
   Protocol (RTSP), (RFC 2326) provides session layer control that may
   be used to control a multicast source. However, RTCP and RTSP
   information is intended for end-to-end control and is not necessarily
   visible at the network layer. Application designers may chose to
   implement any appropriate control plane for their multicast
   applications (e.g. reliable multicast transport protocols_), and
   therefore a network-layer mobility mechanism must not assume the
   presence of a specific transport or session protocols.

References

Informative References

   1  Aguilar, L. "Datagram Routing for Internet Multicasting", In ACM
      SIGCOMM '84 Communications Architectures and Protocols, pp. 58-63,
      ACM Press, June, 1984.

   2  S. Deering, "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", RFC 1112,
      August 1989.

   3  G. Xylomenos and G.C. Plyzos, "IP Multicast for Mobile Hosts",
      IEEE Communications Magazine, 35(1), pp. 54-58, January 1997.

   4  R. Hinden and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
      Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   5  D.B. Johnson, C. Perkins and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6",
      RFC 3775, June 2004.

   6  V. Devarapalli and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2
      and the Revised IPsec Architecture", RFC 4877, April 2007.

   7  ITU-T Recommendation, "G.114 - One-way transmission time",
      Telecommunication Union Standardization Sector, 05/2003.

   8  Akyildiz, I and Wang, X., "A Survey on Wireless Mesh Networks",
      IEEE Communications Magazine, 43(9), pp. 23-30, September 2005.





Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 27]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009



   9 S. Bhattacharyya, "An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM)",
      RFC 3569, July 2003.

   10 H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", RFC
      4607, August 2006.

   11 D. Waitzman, C. Partridge, S.E. Deering, "Distance Vector
      Multicast Routing Protocol", RFC 1075, November 1988.

   12 D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy, D. Thaler, S. Deering, M.
      Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P. Sharma, L. Wei, "Protocol
      Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
      Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998.

   13 B. Fenner, M. Handley, H. Holbrook, I. Kouvelas, "Protocol
      Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
      Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   14 M. Handley, I. Kouvelas, T. Speakman, L. Vicisano, "Bidirectional
      Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", RFC 5015, October
      2007.

   15 T. Bates et al. "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
      January 2007.

   16 S. Deering, W. Fenner and B. Haberman "Multicast Listener
      Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999.

   17 R. Vida and L. Costa (Eds.) "Multicast Listener Discovery Version
      2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   18 Arkko, J, Vogt, C, Haddad, W. "Enhanced Route Optimization for
      Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, May 2007.

   19 Koodli, R. "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568, July 2009.

   20 Soliman, H, Castelluccia, C, El-Malki, K, Bellier, L.
      "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Management", RFC 5380,
      October 2008.

   21 Loughney, J, Nakhjiri, M, Perkins, C, Koodli, R. "Context Transfer
      Protocol (CXTP)", RFC 4067, July 2005.

   22 Montavont, N, et al. "Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6",
      draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-05, Internet Draft (work in
      progress), May 2008.




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 28]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009



   23 Narayanan, V, Thaler, D, Bagnulo, M, Soliman, H. "IP Mobility and
      Multi-homing Interactions and Architectural Considerations",
      draft-vidya-ip-mobility-multihoming-interactions-01.txt, Internet
      Draft (work in progress, expired), July 2007.

   24 Savola, P, Haberman, B. "Embedding the Rendezvous Point (RP)
      Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address", RFC 3956, November 2004.

   25 Schmidt, T.C. and Waehlisch, M. "Predictive versus Reactive -
      Analysis of Handover Performance and Its Implications on IPv6 and
      Multicast Mobility", Telecommunication Systems, 30(1-3), pp. 123-
      142, November 2005.

   26 Schmidt, T.C. and Waehlisch, M. "Morphing Distribution Trees - On
      the Evolution of Multicast States under Mobility and an Adaptive
      Routing Scheme for Mobile SSM Sources", Telecommunication Systems,
      Vol. 33, No. 1-3, pp. 131-154, December 2006.

   27 Diot, C. et al. "Deployment Issues for the IP Multicast Service
      and Architecture", IEEE Network Magazine, spec. issue on
      Multicasting 14(1), pp. 78-88, 2000.

   28 Eubanks, M. http://multicasttech.com/status/, 2008.

   29 Garyfalos, A, Almeroth, K. and Sanzgiri, K. "Deployment Complexity
      Versus Performance Efficiency in Mobile Multicast", Intern.
      Workshop on Broadband Wireless Multimedia: Algorithms,
      Architectures and Applications (BroadWiM), San Jose, California,
      USA, October 2004. Online: http://imj.ucsb.edu/papers/BROADWIM-
      04.pdf.gz

   30 Garyfalos, A, Almeroth, K. "A Flexible Overlay Architecture for
      Mobile IPv6 Multicast", IEEE Journ. on Selected Areas in Comm, 23
      (11), pp. 2194-2205, November 2005.

   31 "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); IP Datacast over DVB-H: Set of
      Specifications for Phase 1", ETSI TS 102 468;

   32 ETSI TS 102 611, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); IP Datacast
      over DVB-H: Implementation Guidelines for Mobility)", European
      Standard (Telecommunications series), November 2004.

   33 Chuang, J. and Sirbu, M. "Pricing Multicast Communication: A Cost-
      Based Approach", Telecommunication Systems 17(3), 281-297, 2001.
      Presented at the INET'98, Geneva, Switzerland, July 1998.





Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 29]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009



   34 Van Mieghem, P, Hooghiemstra, G, Hofstad, R. "On the Efficiency of
      Multicast", IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 9, 6, pp. 719-732, Dec. 2001.

   35 Chalmers, R.C. and Almeroth, K.C, "On the topology of multicast
      trees", IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 11(1), 153-165, 2003.

   36 Janic, M. and Van Mieghem, P. "On properties of multicast routing
      trees", Int. J. Commun. Syst. 19(1), pp. 95-114, Feb. 2006.

   37 Van Mieghem, P. "Performance Analysis of Communication Networks
      and Systems", Cambridge University Press, 2006.

   38 Fenner, B, He, H, Haberman, B, Sandick, H. "Internet Group
      Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)-
      Based Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605,
      August 2006.

   39 Jeon, H., Riegel, M. and Jeong, S. "Transmission of IP over
      Ethernet over IEEE 802.16 Networks ", draft-ietf-16ng-ip-over-
      ethernet-over-802-dot-16-12.txt, (work in progress), September
      2009.

   40 Shin, M. et al. "IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks",
      RFC 5181, May 2008.

   41 Patil, B. et al. "Transmission of IPv6 via the IPv6 Convergence
      Sublayer over IEEE 802.16 Networks", RFC 5121, February 2008.

   42 Kim, S. et al. "Multicast Transport on IEEE 802.16 Networks",
      draft-sekim-802-16-multicast-01, (work in progress, expired), July
      2007.

   43 IEEE 802.16e-2005: IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
      networks Part 16: "Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband
      Wireless Access Systems Amendment for Physical and Medium Access
      Control Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in Licensed
      Bands.", New York, February 2006.

   44 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
      Services and System Aspects; "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)";
      Stage 2, 3GPP TS 23.228, Rel. 5 ff, 2002 - 2007.

   45 Wasserman, M. "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third Generation
      Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards", RFC 3314, September 2002.

   46 3GPP2, www.3gpp2.org,
      "X.S0022-A, Broadcast and Multicast Service in cdma2000 Wireless



Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 30]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009



      IP Network, Rev. A.",
      http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/tsgx.cfm, February 2007.

   47 ETSI EN 302 304, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Transmission
      System for Handheld Terminals (DVB-H)", European Standard
      (Telecommunications series), November 2004.

   48 Fairhurst, G. and Montpetit, M. "Address Resolution Mechanisms for
      IP Datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks", RFC 4947, July 2007.

   49 Montpetit, M. et al. "A Framework for Transmission of IP Datagrams
      over MPEG-2 Networks", RFC 4259, November 2005.

   50 Yang, X, Vare, J, Owens, T. "A Survey of Handover Algorithms in
      DVB-H", IEEE Comm. Surveys, 8(4), 2006.

   51 Fairhurst, G., and Collini-Nocker, B. "Unidirectional Lightweight
      Encapsulation (ULE) for Transmission of IP Datagrams over an MPEG-
      2 Transport Stream (TS)", RFC 4326, December 2005.

   52 Fairhurst, G., and Collini-Nocker, B. "Extension Formats for
      Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) and the Generic
      Stream Encapsulation (GSE)", RFC 5163, April 2008.

   53 "Draft IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
      Media Independent Handover Services", IEEE LAN/MAN Draft IEEE
      P802.21/D07.00, July 2007.

   54 Melia, T. et al. "Mobility Services Transport: Problem Statement",
      RFC 5164, March 2008.

   55 Melia, T. et al. "IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services Framework Design
      (MSFD)", draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-12, January 2009.

   56 Janneteau, C, Tian, Y, Csaba, S. et al. "Comparison of Three
      Approaches Towards Mobile Multicast", IST Mobile Summit 2003,
      Aveiro, Portugal, 16-18 June 2003.

   57 Suh, K, Kwon, D.-H, Suh, Y.-J. and Park, Y, "Fast Multicast
      Protocol for Mobile IPv6 in the fast handovers environments",
      Internet Draft - (work in progress, expired), February 2004.

   58 Xia, F. and Sarikaya, B, "FMIPv6 extensions for Multicast
      Handover", draft-xia-mipshop-fmip-multicast-01, (work in progress,
      expired), March 2007.





Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 31]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009



   59 Schmidt, T.C. and Waehlisch, M, "Seamless Multicast Handover in a
      Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Environment (M-HMIPv6)", draft-schmidt-
      waehlisch-mhmipv6-04, (work in progress, expired), December 2005.

   60 Jonas, K. and Miloucheva, I, "Multicast Context Transfer in mobile
      IPv6", draft-miloucheva-mldv2-mipv6-00.txt, (work in progress,
      expired), June 2005.

   61 Leoleis, G, Prezerakos, G, Venieris, I, "Seamless multicast
      mobility support using fast MIPv6 extensions", Computer Comm. 29,
      pp. 3745-3765, 2006.

   62 Gundavelli, S, et al. "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

   63 Deng, H, Schmidt, T.C., Seite, P., and Yang, P. "Multicast Support
      Requirements for Proxy Mobile IPv6", draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-
      requirement-02, (work in progress), July 2009.

   64 Zhang, H. et al. "Mobile IPv6 Multicast with Dynamic Multicast
      Agent", draft-zhang-mipshop-multicast-dma-03.txt, (work in
      progress, expired), January 2007.

   65 Romdhani, I, Kellil, M, Lach, H.-Y. et. al. "IP Mobile Multicast:
      Challenges and Solutions", IEEE Comm. Surveys, 6(1), 2004.

   66 Conta, A, Deering, S, "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 -
      Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   67 Waehlisch, M., Schmidt, T.C. "Between Underlay and Overlay: On
      Deployable, Efficient, Mobility-agnostic Group Communication
      Services", Internet Research, 17 (5), pp. 519-534, Emerald
      Insight, Bingley, UK, November 2007.

   68 Buford, J. "Hybrid Overlay Multicast Framework", draft-irtf-sam-
      hybrid-overlay-framework-02.txt, Internet Draft (work in
      progress), February 2008.

   69 Waehlisch, M., Schmidt, T.C. "A Common API for Transparent Hybrid
      Multicast", draft-waehlisch-sam-common-api, October 2009.

   70 Christensen, M, Kimball, K. and Solensky, F. "Considerations for
      Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast Listener
      Discovery (MLD) Snooping Switches", RFC 4541, May 2006.

   71 Jelger, C, Noel, T. "Multicast for Mobile Hosts in IP Networks:
      Progress and Challenges", IEEE Wirel. Comm, pp 58-64, Oct. 2002.




Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 32]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009



   72 Romdhani, I, Bettahar, H. and Bouabdallah, A. "Transparent
      handover for mobile multicast sources", in P. Lorenz and P. Dini,
      eds, Proceedings of the IEEE ICN'06, IEEE Press, 2006.

   73 Lin, C.R. et al. "Scalable Multicast Protocol in IP-Based Mobile
      Networks", Wireless Networks, 8 (1), pp. 27-36, January, 2002.

   74 Chang, R.-S. and Yen, Y.-S. "A Multicast Routing Protocol with
      Dynamic Tree Adjustment for Mobile IPv6", Journ. Information
      Science and Engineering 20, pp. 1109-1124, 2004.

   75 Thaler, D. "Supporting Mobile SSM Sources for IPv6", Proceedings
      of ietf meeting, Dec. 2001.
      URL: www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/slides/magma-2.pdf

   76 Jelger, C. and Noel, T. "Supporting Mobile SSM sources for IPv6
      (MSSMSv6)", Internet Draft (work in progress, expired), January
      2002.

   77 Handley, M, Perkins, C, Whelan, E. "Session Announcement
      Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   78 Vida, R, Costa, L, Fdida, S. "M-HBH - Efficient Mobility
      Management in Multicast", Proc. of NGC '02, pp. 105-112, ACM Press
      2002.

   79 O'Neill, A. "Mobility Management and IP Multicast", draft-oneill-
      mip-multicast-00.txt, (work in progress, expired), July 2002.

   80 Schmidt, T. C. and Waehlisch, M. "Extending SSM to MIPv6 -
      Problems, Solutions and Improvements", Computational Methods in
      Science and Technology 11(2), pp. 147-152. Selected Papers from
      TERENA Networking Conference, Poznan, May 2005.

   81 Schmidt, T.C., Waehlisch, M., and Wodarz, M. "Fast Adaptive
      Routing Supporting Mobile Senders in Source Specific Multicast",
      Telecommunication Systems, 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11235-
      009-9200-y

   82 Lee, H., Han, S. and Hong, J. "Efficient Mechanism for Source
      Mobility in Source Specific Multicast", in K. Kawahara and I.
      Chong, eds, "Proceedings of ICOIN2006", LNCS vol. 3961, pp. 82-91,
      Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006.

   83 Kovacshazi, Z. and Vida, R. "Host Identity Specific Multicast",
      Third International Conference on Networking and Services ICNS,
      IEEE Press, pp. 1-1, June 2007.



Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 33]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009




   84 Kellil, M, Romdhani, I, Lach, H.-Y, Bouabdallah, A. and Bettahar,
      H. "Multicast Receiver and Sender Access Control and its
      Applicability to Mobile IP Environments: A Survey", IEEE Comm.
      Surveys & Tutorials 7(2), pp. 46-70, 2005.

   85 Castellucia, C, Montenegro, G. "Securing Group Management in IPv6
      with Cryptographically Based Addresses", Proc. 8th IEEE Int'l
      Symp. Comp. and Commun, Turkey, July 2003, pp. 588-93.

   86 Schmidt, T.C, Waehlisch, M., Christ, O., and Hege, G. "AuthoCast -
      a mobility-compliant protocol framework for multicast sender
      authentication", Security and Communication Networks, 1(6),
      pp. 495 - 509, 2008.

   87 Fenner, B. et al. "Multicast Source Notification of Interest
      Protocol", draft-ietf-idmr-msnip-05.txt, (work in progress,
      expired), March 2004.

   88 Schulzrinne, H. et al. "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
      Applications", RFC 3550, July 2003.

Acknowledgments

   Work on exploring the problem space for mobile multicast has been
   pioneered by Greg Daley and Gopi Kurup within their early draft
   "Requirements for Mobile Multicast Clients" (draft-daley-magma-
   mobile).

   Since then, many people have actively discussed the different issues
   and contributed to the enhancement of this memo. The authors would
   like to thank (in alphabetical order) Kevin C. Almeroth, Lachlan
   Andrew, Jari Arkko, Cedric Baudoin, Hans L. Cycon, Hui Deng, Marshall
   Eubanks, Zhigang Huang, Christophe Jelger, Andrei Gutov, Rajeev
   Koodli, Mark Palkow, Craig Partridge, Imed Romdhani, Hesham Soliman,
   Dave Thaler and last, but not least, very special thanks to Stig
   Venaas for his frequent and thorough advice.


Author's Addresses

   Thomas C. Schmidt
   Dept. Informatik
   Hamburg University of Applied Sciences,
   Berliner Tor 7
   D-20099 Hamburg, Germany
   Phone: +49-40-42875-8157



Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 34]


                             MMCASTv6-PS                 October 2009


   Email: schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de


   Matthias Waehlisch
   link-lab
   Hoenower Str. 35
   D-10318 Berlin, Germany
   Email: mw@link-lab.net

   Godred Fairhurst
   School of Engineering,
   University of Aberdeen,
   Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, UK
   EMail: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk





































Schmidt, et al.          Expires - April 2010                [Page 35]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.114, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/