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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution

MULTIMOB Group                                              T C. Schmidt
Internet-Draft                                               HAW Hamburg
Intended status: BCP                                        M. Waehlisch
Expires: August 12, 2010                            link-lab & FU Berlin
                                                             S. Krishnan
                                                                Ericsson
                                                        February 8, 2010


 A Minimal Deployment Option for Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6 Domains
           draft-schmidt-multimob-pmipv6-mcast-deployment-04

Abstract

   This document describes deployment options for activating multicast
   listener functions in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains without modifying
   mobility and multicast protocol standards.  Similar to Home Agents in
   Mobile IPv6, PMIPv6 Local Mobility Anchors serve as multicast
   subscription anchor points, while Mobile Access Gateways provide MLD
   proxy functions.  In this scenario, Mobile Nodes remain agnostic of
   multicast mobility operations.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted 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.



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



































Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Deployment Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Operations of the Mobile Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Operations of the Mobile Access Gateway  . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Operations of the Local Mobility Anchor  . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4.  IPv4 Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.5.  Multicast Availability throughout the Access Network . . . 12
     4.6.  A Note on Explicit Tracking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Message Source and Destination Address . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Query  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Report/Done  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix A.  Initial MLD Queries on Upcoming Links . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix B.  State of IGMP/MLD Proxy Implementations . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix C.  Comparative Evaluation of Different Approaches  . . . 16
   Appendix D.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

























Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


1.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] extends Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] by
   network-based management functions that enable IP mobility for a host
   without requiring its participation in any mobility-related
   signaling.  Additional network entities, i.e., the Local Mobility
   Anchor (LMA), and Mobile Access Gateways (MAGs), are responsible for
   managing IP mobility on behalf of the mobile node (MN).

   With these routing entities in place, the mobile node looses
   transparent end-to-end connectivity to the static Internet, and in
   the particular case of multicast communication, group membership
   management as signaled by the Multicast Listener Discovery protocol
   [RFC3810], [RFC2710] requires a dedicated treatment at the network
   side, see [I-D.deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement].

   Multicast routing functions need a careful placement within the
   PMIPv6 domain to augment unicast transmission with group
   communication services.  [RFC5213] does not explicitly address
   multicast communication, whereas bi-directional home tunneling, the
   minimal multicast support arranged by MIPv6, cannot be applied in
   network-based management scenarios: A mobility-unaware node will
   experience no reason to initiate a tunnel with an entity of mobility
   support.

   This document describes options for deploying multicast listener
   functions in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains without modifying mobility and
   multicast protocol standards.  Similar to Home Agents in Mobile IPv6,
   PMIPv6 Local Mobility Anchors serve as multicast subscription anchor
   points, while Mobile Access Gateways provide MLD proxy functions.
   Mobile Nodes in this scenario remain agnostic of multicast mobility
   operations.  Accrediting the problem space of multicast mobility
   [I-D.irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps], this document does not address
   specific optimizations and efficiency improvements of multicast
   routing in network-centered mobility beyond base potentials, as such
   solutions would require changes to the base specification of
   [RFC5213].


2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminology as defined for the mobility
   protocols [RFC3775] and [RFC5213], as well as the multicast edge
   related protocols [RFC3810] and [RFC4605].







Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


3.  Overview

   The reference scenario for multicast deployment in Proxy Mobile IPv6
   domains is illustrated in Figure 1.
                       +-------------+
                       | Content     |
                       | Source      |
                       +-------------+
                              |
                     ***  ***  ***  ***
                    *   **   **   **   *
                   *                    *
                    *  Fixed Internet  *
                   *                    *
                    *   **   **   **   *
                     ***  ***  ***  ***
                      /            \
                  +----+         +----+
                  |LMA1|         |LMA2|                 Multicast Anchor
                  +----+         +----+
             LMAA1  |              |  LMAA2
                    |              |
                    \\           //\\
                     \\         //  \\
                      \\       //    \\                 Unicast Tunnel
                       \\     //      \\
                        \\   //        \\
                         \\ //          \\
               Proxy-CoA1 ||            ||  Proxy-CoA2
                       +----+          +----+
                       |MAG1|          |MAG2|           MLD Proxy
                       +----+          +----+
                        |  |             |
                MN-HNP1 |  | MN-HNP2     | MN-HNP3
                       MN1 MN2          MN3

      Figure 1: Reference Network for Multicast Deployment in PMIPv6

   An MN in a PMIPv6 domain will decide on multicast group membership
   management completely independent of its current mobility conditions.
   It will submit MLD Report and Done messages following application
   desires, thereby using its link-local source address and multicast
   destination addresses according to [RFC3810], or [RFC2710].  These
   link-local signaling messages will arrive at the currently active MAG
   via one of its downstream local (wireless) links.  A multicast
   unaware MAG would simply discard these MLD messages.

   To facilitate multicast in a PMIPv6 domain, an MLD proxy function



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   [RFC4605] needs to be deployed on the MAG that selects the tunnel
   interface corresponding to the MN's LMA for its upstream interface
   (cf., section 6 of [RFC5213]).  Thereby, each LMA-to-MAG tunnel
   interface defines an MLD proxy domain at the MAG, containing all
   downstream links to MNs that share this LMA.  According to standard
   proxy operations, MLD Report messages will be forwarded under
   aggregation up the tunnel interface to its corresponding LMA.

   Serving as the designated multicast router or an additional MLD
   proxy, the LMA will transpose any MLD message from a MAG into the
   multicast routing infrastructure.  Correspondingly, the LMA will
   implement appropriate multicast forwarding states at its tunnel
   interface.  Traffic arriving for groups under subscription will
   arrive at the LMA, which it will forward according to all its group/
   source states.  In addition, the LMA will naturally act as an MLD
   querier, seeing its downstream tunnel interfaces as multicast enabled
   links.

   At the MAG, MLD queries and multicast data will arrive on the
   (tunnel) interface that is assigned to a group of access links as
   identified by its Binding Update List (cf., section 6 of [RFC5213]).
   As specified for MLD proxies, the MAG will forward multicast traffic
   and initiate related signaling down the appropriate access links to
   the MNs.  In proceeding this way, all multicast-related signaling and
   the data traffic will transparently flow from the LMA to the MN on an
   LMA-specific tree, which is shared among the multicast sources.

   In case of a mobility handover, the MN (unaware of IP mobility) will
   refrain from submitting unsolicited MLD reports.  Instead, the MAG is
   required to maintain group memberships in the following way.  On
   observing a new MN on a downstream link, the MAG sends a General MLD
   Query.  Based on its outcome and the multicast group states
   previously maintained at the MAG, a corresponding Report will be sent
   to the LMA aggregating group membership states according to the proxy
   function.  Additional Reports can be omitted, whenever multicast
   forwarding states previously established at the new MAG already cover
   the subscriptions of the MN.

   In summary, the following steps are executed on handover:

   1.  The MAG-MN link comes up and the MAG discovers the new MN.

   2.  Unicast address configuration and PMIPv6 binding are performed,
       the MAG can determine the corresponding LMA.

   3.  Following IPv6 address configuration, the MAG SHOULD send an
       (early) MLD General Query to the new downstream link as part of
       its standard multicast-enabled router operations.



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   4.  The MAG SHOULD determine whether the MN is admissible to
       multicast services, and stop here otherwise.

   5.  The MAG adds the new downstream link to the MLD proxy instance
       with up-link to the corresponding LMA.

   6.  The corresponding Proxy instance triggers an MLD General Query on
       the new downstream link.

   7.  The MN Membership Reports arrive at the MAG, either in response
       to the early Query or to that of the Proxy instance.

   8.  The Proxy processes the MLD Report, updates states and reports
       upstream if necessary.

   After Re-Binding, the LMA is not required to issue a General MLD
   Query on the tunnel link to refresh forwarding states.  Multicast
   state updates SHOULD be triggered by the MAG, which aggregates
   subscriptions of all its MNs (see the call flow in Figure 2).
































Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   MN1             MAG1             MN2             MAG2             LMA
   |                |                |               |                |
   |    Join(G)     |                |               |                |
   +--------------->|                |               |                |
   |                |     Join(G)    |               |                |
   |                |<---------------+               |                |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |     Aggregated Join(G)         |                |
   |                +================================================>|
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |   Mcast Data   |               |                |
   |                |<================================================+
   |                |                |               |                |
   |  Mcast Data    | Mcast Data     |               |                |
   |<---------------+--------------->|               |                |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |      < Movement to MAG2 & PMIP Binding Update > |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |                |--- Rtr Sol -->|                |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |                |   MLD Query   |                |
   |                |                |<--------------+                |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |                |   Join(G)     |                |
   |                |                +-------------->|                |
   |                |                |               Aggregated Join(G)
   |                |                |               +===============>|
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |   Mcast Data   |               |                |
   |                |<================================================+
   |                |                |               |   Mcast Data   |
   |                |                |               |<===============+
   |  Mcast Data    |                |               |                |
   |<---------------+                |  Mcast Data   |                |
   |                |                |<--------------+                |
   |                |                |               |                |

               Figure 2: Call Flow of Multicast-enabled PMIP

   These multicast deployment considerations likewise apply for mobile
   nodes that operate with its IPv4 stack enabled in a PMIPv6 domain.
   PMIPv6 can provide an IPv4 home address mobility support
   [I-D.ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support].  Such mobile node will use IGMP
   [RFC2236],[RFC3376] signaling for multicast, which is handled by an
   IGMP proxy function at the MAG in an analogous way.

   Following these deployment steps, multicast management transparently
   inter-operates with PMIPv6.  It is worth noting that multicast



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   streams can possibly be distributed on redundant paths that lead to
   duplicate traffic arriving from different LMAs at one MAG, and can
   cause multiple data transmissions from an MAG over one wireless
   domain to different MNs (see Appendix C for further considerations).


4.  Deployment Details

   Multicast activation in a PMIPv6 domain requires to deploy general
   multicast functions at PMIPv6 routers and to define its interaction
   with the PMIPv6 protocol in the following way:

4.1.  Operations of the Mobile Node

   A Mobile Node willing to manage multicast traffic will join, maintain
   and leave groups as if located in the fixed Internet.  No specific
   mobility actions nor implementations are required at the MN.

4.2.  Operations of the Mobile Access Gateway

   A Mobility Access Gateway is required to assist in MLD signaling and
   data forwarding between the MNs which it serves, and the
   corresponding LMAs associated to each MN.  It therefore needs to
   implement an instance of the MLD proxy function [RFC4605] for each
   upstream tunnel interface that has been established with an LMA.  The
   MAG decides on the mapping of downstream links to a proxy instance
   (and hence an upstream link to an LMA) based on the regular Binding
   Update List as maintained by PMIPv6 standard operations (cf., section
   6.1 of [RFC5213]).  As links connecting MNs and MAGs change under
   mobility, MLD proxies at MAGs MUST be able to dynamically add and
   remove downstream interfaces in its configuration.

   On the reception of MLD reports from an MN, the MAG MUST identify the
   corresponding proxy instance from the incoming interface and perform
   regular MLD proxy operations: it will insert/update/remove a
   multicast forwarding state on the incoming interface, and state
   updates will be merged into the MLD proxy membership database.  An
   aggregated Report will be sent to the upstream tunnel of the MAG when
   the membership database (cf., section 4.1 of [RFC4605]) changes.
   Conversely, on the reception of MLD Queries, the MAG proxy instance
   will answer the Queries on behalf of all active downstream receivers
   maintained in its membership database.  Queries sent by the LMA do
   not force the MAG to trigger corresponding messages immediately
   towards MNs.  Multicast traffic arriving at the MAG on an upstream
   interface will be forwarded according to the group/source-specific
   forwarding states as acquired for each downstream interface within
   the MLD proxy instance.  At this stage, it is important to stress
   that IGMP/MLD proxy implementations capable of multiple instances are



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   expected to closely follow the specifications of section 4.2 in
   [RFC4605], i.e., treat proxy instances in isolation of each other
   while forwarding.

   In case of a mobility handover, the MAG will continue to manage
   upstream tunnels and downstream interfaces as foreseen in the PMIPv6
   specification.  It MUST dynamically associate new access links to
   proxy instances that for a MN provide up-link to its corresponding
   LMA.  In addition, it MUST assure consistency of its up- and
   downstream interfaces that change under mobility with MLD proxy
   instances and its multicast forwarding states.  The MAG will detect
   the arrival of a new MN by receiving a router solicitation message
   and by an upcoming link.  To learn about multicast groups subscribed
   by a newly attaching MN, the MAG sends a General Query to the MN's
   link.  Querying an upcoming interface is a standard operation of MLD
   queriers (see Appendix A) and performed immediately after address
   configuration.  In addition, an MLD query SHOULD be initiated by the
   proxy instance, as soon as a new interface has been configured for
   downstream.  In case, the access link between MN and MAG goes down,
   interface-specific multicast states change.  Both cases may alter the
   composition of the membership database, which then will trigger
   corresponding Reports towards the LMA.  Note that the actual
   observable state depends on the access link model in use.

   An MN may be unable to answer MAG multicast membership queries due to
   handover procedures, or its report may arrive before the MAG has
   configured its link as proxy downstream interface.  Such occurrences
   are equivalent to a General Query loss.  To prevent erroneous query
   timeouts at the MAG, MLD parameters SHOULD be carefully adjusted to
   the mobility regime.  In particular, MLD timers and the Robustness
   Variable (see section 9 of [RFC3810]) MUST be chosen to be compliant
   with the time scale of handover operations and proxy configurations
   in the PMIPv6 domain.

   In proceeding this way, the MAG is entitled to aggregate multicast
   subscriptions for each of its MLD proxy instances.  However, this
   deployment approach does not prevent multiple identical streams
   arriving from different LMA upstream interfaces.  Furthermore, a per
   group forwarding into the wireless domain is restricted to the link
   model in use.

4.3.  Operations of the Local Mobility Anchor

   For any MN, the Local Mobility Anchor acts as the persistent Home
   Agent and at the same time as the default multicast querier for the
   corresponding MAG.  It implements the function of the designated
   multicast router or a further MLD proxy.  According to MLD reports
   received from a MAG (on behalf of the MNs), it establishes/maintains/



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   removes group/source-specific multicast forwarding states at its
   corresponding downstream tunnel interfaces.  At the same time, it
   procures for aggregated multicast membership maintenance at its
   upstream interface.  Based on the multicast-transparent operations of
   the MAGs, the LMA experiences its tunnel interfaces as multicast
   enabled downstream links, serving zero to many listening nodes.
   Multicast traffic arriving at the LMA is transparently forwarded
   according to its multicast forwarding information base.

   On the occurrence of a mobility handover, the LMA will receive
   Binding Lifetime De-Registrations and Binding Lifetime Extensions
   that will cause a re-mapping of home network prefixes to Proxy-CoAs
   in its Binding Cache (see section 5.3 of [RFC5213]).  The multicast
   forwarding states require updating, as well, if the MN within an MLD
   proxy domain is the only receiver of a multicast group.  Two cases
   need distinction:

   1.  The mobile node is the only receiver of a group behind the
       interface at which a De-Registration was received: The membership
       database of the MAG changes, which will trigger a Report/Done
       sent via the MAG-to-LMA interface to remove this group.  The LMA
       thus terminates multicast forwarding.

   2.  The mobile node is the only receiver of a group behind the
       interface at which a Lifetime Extension was received: The
       membership database of the MAG changes, which will trigger a
       Report sent via the MAG-to-LMA interface to add this group.  The
       LMA thus starts multicast distribution.

   In proceeding this way, each LMA will provide transparent multicast
   support for the group of MNs it serves.  It will perform traffic
   aggregation at the MN-group level and will assure that multicast data
   streams are uniquely forwarded per individual LMA-to-MAG tunnel.

4.4.  IPv4 Support

   An MN in a PMIPv6 domain may use an IPv4 address transparently for
   communication as specified in [I-D.ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support].
   For this purpose, LMAs can register IPv4-Proxy-CoAs in its Binding
   Caches and MAGs can provide IPv4 support in access networks.
   Correspondingly, multicast membership management will be performed by
   the MN using IGMP.  For multicast support on the network side, an
   IGMP proxy function needs to be deployed at MAGs in exactly the same
   way as for IPv6.  [RFC4605] defines IGMP proxy behaviour in full
   agreement with IPv6/MLD.  Thus IPv4 support can be transparently
   provided following the obvious deployment analogy.

   For a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 access network, the MAG proxy instances



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   SHOULD choose multicast signaling according to address configurations
   on the link, but MAY submit IGMP and MLD queries in parallel, if
   needed.  It should further be noted that the infrastructure cannot
   identify two data streams as identical when distributed via an IPv4
   and IPv6 multicast group.  Thus duplicate data may be forwarded on a
   heterogeneous network layer.

4.5.  Multicast Availability throughout the Access Network

   There may be deployment scenarios, where multicast services are
   available throughout the access network independent of the PMIPv6
   infrastructure.  Direct multicast access at MAGs may be supported
   through native multicast routing, within a flat access network that
   includes a multicast router, via dedicated (tunnel or VPN) links
   between MAGs and designated multicast routers, or by deploying AMT
   [I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast].

   Multicast deployment can be simplified in these scenarios.  A single
   proxy instance at MAGs with up-link into the multicast cloud, for
   instance, could serve group communication purposes.  MAGs could
   operate as general multicast routers or AMT gateways, as well.

   These solutions have in common that mobility management is covered by
   the dynamics of multicast routing, as initially foreseen in the
   Remote Subscription approach sketched in [RFC3775].  Care must be
   taken to avoid service disruptions due to tardy multicast routing
   operations [I-D.irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps], and the different possible
   approaches should be carefully investigated.  Such work is beyond the
   scope of this document.

4.6.  A Note on Explicit Tracking

   IGMPv3/MLDv2 [RFC3376], [RFC3810] may operate in combination with
   explicit tracking, which allows routers to monitor each multicast
   receiver.  This mechanism is not standardized yet, but widely
   implemented by vendors as it supports faster leave latencies and
   reduced signaling.

   Enabling explicit tracking on downstream interfaces of the LMA and
   MAG would track a single MAG and MN respectively per interface.  It
   may be used to preserve bandwidth on the MAG-MN link.


5.  Message Source and Destination Address

   This section describes source and destination addresses of MLD
   messages.  The interface identifier A-B denotes an interface on node
   A, which is connected to node B. This includes tunnel interfaces.



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


5.1.  Query
        +===========+================+======================+==========+
        | Interface | Source Address | Destination Address  | Header   |
        +===========+================+======================+==========+
        |           | LMAA           | Proxy-CoA            | outer    |
        + LMA-MAG   +----------------+----------------------+----------+
        |           | LMA-link-local | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] | inner    |
        +-----------+----------------+----------------------+----------+
        | MAG-MN    | MAG-link-local | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] |   --     |
        +-----------+----------------+----------------------+----------+

5.2.  Report/Done
        +===========+================+======================+==========+
        | Interface | Source Address | Destination Address  | Header   |
        +===========+================+======================+==========+
        | MN-MAG    | MN-link-local  | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] |   --     |
        +-----------+----------------+----------------------+----------+
        |           | Proxy-CoA      | LMAA                 | outer    |
        + MAG-LMA   +----------------+----------------------+----------+
        |           | MAG-link-local | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] | inner    |
        +-----------+----------------+----------------------+----------+


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.


7.  Security Considerations

   This draft does neither introduce additional messages nor novel
   protocol operations.  Consequently, no new threats arrive from
   procedures described in this document in excess to [RFC3810],
   [RFC4605] and [RFC5213] security concerns.


8.  Acknowledgements

   This memo is the outcome of extensive previous discussions and a
   follow-up of several initial drafts on the subject.  The authors
   would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Luis Contreras, Gorry
   Fairhurst, Seil Jeon, Jouni Korhonen, Sebastian Meiling, Liu Hui,
   Imed Romdhani, Behcet Sarikaya, Stig Venaas, and Juan Carlos Zuniga
   for advice, help and reviews of the document.  Funding by the German
   Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the G-LAB



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   Initiative is gratefully acknowledged.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support]
              Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-17
              (work in progress), September 2009.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2236]  Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              October 1999.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
              Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [RFC4605]  Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
              "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
              ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, August 2006.

   [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
              and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.

9.2.  Informative References

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




Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   [I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast]
              Thaler, D., Talwar, M., Aggarwal, A., Vicisano, L., and T.
              Pusateri, "Automatic IP Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels
              (AMT)", draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-09 (work in
              progress), June 2008.

   [I-D.irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps]
              Fairhurst, G., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch, "Multicast
              Mobility in MIPv6: Problem Statement and Brief Survey",
              draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-09 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

   [I-D.zuniga-multimob-smspmip]
              Zuniga, J., Lu, G., and A. Rahman, "Support Multicast
              Services Using Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              draft-zuniga-multimob-smspmip-01 (work in progress),
              January 2010.


Appendix A.  Initial MLD Queries on Upcoming Links

   According to [RFC3810] and [RFC2710] when an IGMP/MLD-enabled
   multicast router starts operating on a subnet, by default it
   considers itself as Querier and sends several General Queries.  Such
   initial query should be sent by the router immediately, but could be
   delayed by a (tunable) Startup Query Interval (see Sections 7.6.2.
   and 9.6. of [RFC3810]).

   Experimental tests on Linux and Cisco systems have revealed immediate
   IGMP Queries following a link trigger event (within a fraction of 1
   ms), while MLD Queries immediately followed the autoconfiguration of
   IPv6 link-local addresses at the corresponding interface.


Appendix B.  State of IGMP/MLD Proxy Implementations

   The deployment scenario defined in this document requires certain
   proxy functionalities at the MAGs that implementations of [RFC4605]
   need to contribute.  In particular, a simultaneous support of IGMP
   and MLD is needed, as well as a configurable list of downstream
   interfaces that may be altered during runtime, and the deployment of
   multiple proxy instances at a single router that can operate
   independently on separated interfaces.

   A brief experimental trial undertaken in February 2010 revealed the
   following divergent status of selected IGMP/MLD proxy
   implementations.




Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   Cisco Edge Router  Software-based commodity edge routers (test device
      from the 26xx-Series) implement IGMPv2/v3 proxy functions only in
      combination with PIM-SM.  There is no support of MLD Proxy.
      Interfaces are dynamically configurable at runtime via the CLI,
      but multiple proxy instances are not supported.

   Linux igmpproxy  IGMPv2 Proxy implementation that permits a static
      configuration of downstream interfaces (simple bug fix required).
      Multiple instances are prevented by a lock (corresponding code re-
      used from a previous DVMRP implementation).  IPv6/MLD is
      unsupported.  Project page:
      http://sourceforge.net/projects/igmpproxy/.

   Linux gproxy  IGMPv3 Proxy implementation that permits configuration
      of the upstream interface, only.  Downstream interfaces are
      collected at startup without dynamic extension of this list.  No
      support of multiple instances or MLD.  Project page: http://
      potiron.loria.fr/projects/madynes/internals/perso/lahmadi/
      igmpv3proxy/.

   Linux ecmh  MLDv1/2 Proxy implementation without IGMP support that
      inspects IPv4 tunnels and detects entcapsulated MLD messages.
      Allows for dynamic addition of interfaces at runtime and multiple
      instances.  However, downstream interfaces cannot be configured.
      Project page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ecmh/


Appendix C.  Comparative Evaluation of Different Approaches

   In this section, we briefly evaluate two basic PMIP concepts for
   multicast traffic organization at LMAs: In scenario A, multicast is
   provided by combined unicast/multicast LMAs as described in this
   document.  Scenario B directs traffic via a dedicated multicast LMA
   as proposed in [I-D.zuniga-multimob-smspmip], for example.

   Both approaches do not establish native multicast distribution
   between the LMA and MAG, but use tunneling mechanisms.  In scenario
   A, a MAG is connected to different multicast-enabled LMAs, and can
   receive the same multicast stream via multiple paths depending on the
   group subscriptions of MNs and their associated LMAs.  This problem,
   a.k.a. tunnel convergence problem, may lead to redundant traffic at
   the MAGs.  Scenario B in contrast configures MAGs to establish a
   tunnel to a single, dedicated multicast LMA for all attached MNs and
   relocates overhead costs to the multicast anchor.  This eliminates
   redundant traffic, but may result in an avalanche problem at the LMA.

   We quantify the costs of both approaches based on two metrics: The
   amount of redundant traffic at MAGs and the number of simultaneous



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   streams at LMAs.  Realistic values depend on the topology and the
   group subscription model.  To explore scalability in a large PMIP
   domain of 1,000,000 MNs, we consider the following two extremal
   multicast settings.

   1.  All MNs participate in distinct multicast groups.

   2.  All MNs join the same multicast groups.

   A typical PMIP deployment approximately allows for 5,000 MNs attached
   to one MAG, while 50 MAGs can be served by one LMA.  Hence 1,000,000
   MNs require approx. 200 MAGs backed by 4 LMAs for unicast
   transmission.  In scenario A, these LMAs also forward multicast
   streams, while in scenario B one additional dedicated LMA (LMA-M)
   serves multicast.  In the following, we calculate the metrics
   described above.

   Setting 1:
         +===================+================+===================+
         | PMIP multicast    | # of redundant | # of sim. streams |
         | scheme            | streams at MAG | at LMA / LMA-M    |
         +===================+================+===================+
         | Combined Unicast/ |          0     |      250,000      |
         | Multicast LMA     |                |                   |
         +-------------------+----------------+-------------------+
         | Dedicated         |          0     |    1,000,000      |
         | Multicast LMA     |                |                   |
         +-------------------+----------------+-------------------+

         1,000,000 MNs are subscribed to distinct multicast groups

   Setting 2:
         +===================+================+===================+
         | PMIP multicast    | # of redundant | # of sim. streams |
         | scheme            | streams at MAG | at LMA / LMA-M    |
         +===================+================+===================+
         | Combined Unicast/ |          4     |           50      |
         | Multicast LMA     |                |                   |
         +-------------------+----------------+-------------------+
         | Dedicated         |          0     |          200      |
         | Multicast LMA     |                |                   |
         +-------------------+----------------+-------------------+

         1,000,000 MNs are subscribed to the same multicast group

   These considerations of extremal settings show that tunnel
   convergence, i.e., duplicate data arriving at a MAG, does cause much
   smaller problems in scalability than the stream replication at LMAs.



Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


   For scenario A it should be also noted that the high stream
   replication requirements at LMAs in setting 1 can be attenuated by
   deploying additional LMAs in a PMIP domain, while scenario B does not
   allow for distributing the LMA-M, as no handover management is
   available at LMA-M.


Appendix D.  Change Log

   The following changes have been made from
   draft-schmidt-multimob-pmipv6-mcast-deployment-03.

   1.  Detailed outline of multicast reconfiguration steps on handovers
       added in protocol overview (section 3).

   2.  Clarified the details of proxy operations at the MAG along with
       the expected features of IGMP/MLD Proxy implementations (section
       4.2).

   3.  Clarified querying in dual-stack scenarios (section 4.4).

   4.  Subsection added on the special case, where multicast is
       available throughout the access network (section 4.5).

   5.  Appendix on IGMP/MLD behaviour added with test reports on current
       Proxy implementations.

   The following changes have been made from
   draft-schmidt-multimob-pmipv6-mcast-deployment-02.

   1.  Many editorial improvements, in particular as response to draft
       reviews.

   2.  Section on IPv4 support added.

   3.  Added clarifications on initial IGMP/MLD Queries and
       supplementary information in appendix.

   4.  Appendix added an comparative performance evaluation regarding
       mixed/dedicated deployment of multicast at LMAs.











Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Multicast Listeners in PMIPv6        February 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Thomas C. Schmidt
   HAW Hamburg
   Berliner Tor 7
   Hamburg  20099
   Germany

   Email: schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de
   URI:   http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt


   Matthias Waehlisch
   link-lab & FU Berlin
   Hoenower Str. 35
   Berlin  10318
   Germany

   Email: mw@link-lab.net


   Suresh Krishnan
   Ericsson
   8400 Decarie Blvd.
   Town of Mount Royal, QC
   Canada

   Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com























Schmidt, et al.          Expires August 12, 2010               [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.120, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/