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

Versions: 00

MULTIMOB Group                                         T C. Schmidt, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               HAW Hamburg
Intended status: Standards Track                                  S. Gao
Expires: May 17, 2012                                           H. Zhang
                                             Beijing Jiaotong University
                                                            M. Waehlisch
                                                    link-lab & FU Berlin
                                                       November 14, 2011


           Mobile Multicast Sender Support in PMIPv6 Domains
                draft-schmidt-multimob-pmipv6-source-00

Abstract

   Multicast communication can be enabled in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains
   by deploying MLD Proxy functions at Mobile Access Gateways and
   multicast routing functions at Local Mobility Anchors, or by
   additional route optimization schemes.  This document describes the
   support of mobile multicast senders in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains that
   is provided by this base deployment scenario, as well as in settings
   of further optimization.  Mobile sources 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).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2012.

Copyright Notice



Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


   Copyright (c) 2011 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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Base Solution for Source Mobility: Overview  . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Base Solution for Source Mobility: Details . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Operations of the Mobile Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Operations of the Mobile Access Gateway  . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Operations of the Local Mobility Anchor  . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.3.1.  Local Mobility Anchors Operating PIM . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  IPv4 Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.5.  Efficiency of the Distribution System  . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Multicast Routing Throughout the Access Network  . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  PIM-SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  BIDIR PIM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Extended Source Mobility Schemes in PMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Multiple Upstream Interface Proxy  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.  Evaluation of Traffic Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix B.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12











Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


1.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] extends Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
   [RFC6275] by network-based management functions that enable IP
   mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any
   mobility-related signaling.  Additional network entities called the
   Local Mobility Anchor (LMA), and Mobile Access Gateways (MAGs), are
   responsible for managing IP mobility on behalf of the mobile node
   (MN).  An MN connected to a PMIPv6 domain, which only operates
   according to the base specifications of [RFC5213], cannot participate
   in multicast communication, as MAGs will discard group packets.

   Multicast support for mobile listeners can be enabled within a PMIPv6
   domain by deploying MLD Proxy functions at Mobile Access Gateways,
   and multicast routing functions at Local Mobility Anchors [RFC6224].
   This base deployment option is the simplest way to PMIPv6 multicast
   extensions in the sense that it neither requires new protocol
   operations nor additional infrastructure entities.  Standard software
   functions need to be activated on PMIPv6 entities, only, on the price
   of possibly non-optimal multicast routing.

   Alternate solutions leverage performance optimization by providing
   multicast routing at the access routers directly, or by other
   dedicated schemes.

   This document describes the support of mobile multicast senders in
   Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains as it is provided by the base deployment
   scenario [RFC6224], as well as optimizations throughout the access
   network infrastructure to efficiently solve the source mobility
   problem as discussed in [RFC5757].  Mobile Nodes in this setting
   remain agnostic of multicast mobility operations.


2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminology as defined for the mobility
   protocols [RFC6275], [RFC5213] and [RFC5844], as well as the
   multicast edge related protocols [RFC3376], [RFC3810] and [RFC4605].


3.  Base Solution for Source Mobility: Overview

   The reference scenario for multicast deployment in Proxy Mobile IPv6
   domains is illustrated in Figure 1.







Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


                       +-------------+
                       | Multicast   |
                       | Listeners   |
                       +-------------+
                              |
                     ***  ***  ***  ***
                    *   **   **   **   *
                   *                    *
                    *  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
                 Multicast Sender + Listener(s)

   Figure 1: Reference Network for  Multicast Deployment in PMIPv6 with
                              Source Mobility

   An MN in a PMIPv6 domain will decide on multicast data transmission
   completely independent of its current mobility conditions.  It will
   send packets as initiated by applications, using its source address
   with Home Network Prefix (HNP) and a multicast destination addresses
   chosen by application needs.  Multicast packets will arrive at the
   currently active MAG via one of its downstream local (wireless)
   links.  A multicast unaware MAG would simply discard these packets in
   the absence of a multicast forwarding information base (MFIB).

   An MN can successfully distribute multicast data in PMIPv6, if MLD
   proxy functions are deployed at the MAG as described in [RFC6224].
   In this set-up, the MLD proxy instance serving a mobile multicast



Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


   source has configured its upstream interface at the tunnel towards
   MN's corresponding LMA.  For each LMA, there will be a separate
   instance of an MLD proxy.

   According to the specifications given in [RFC4605], multicast data
   arriving from a downstream interface of an MLD proxy will be
   forwarded to the upstream interface and to all but the incoming
   downstream interfaces with appropriate forwarding states for this
   group.  Thus multicast streams originating from an MN will arrive at
   the corresponding LMA and directly at all mobile receivers co-located
   at the same MAG.  Serving as the designated multicast router or an
   additional MLD proxy, the LMA forwards data to the fixed Internet, if
   forwarding states are maintained through multicast routing.  If the
   LMA is acting as another MLD proxy, it will forward the multicast
   data to its upstream interface, and based upon the downstream
   interfaces' subscriptions accordingly.

   In case of a handover, the MN (unaware of IP mobility) can continue
   to send multicast packets as soon as network connectivity is
   reconfigured.  At this time, the MAG has determined the corresponding
   LMA, and IPv6 unicast address configuration with PMIPv6 bindings have
   been performed.  Multicast packets arriving at the MAG are discarded
   until the MAG has completed the following steps.

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

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

   As soon as the MN's uplink is associated with the corresponding MLD
   proxy instance, multicast packets are forwarded again to the LMA and
   eventually to receivers within the PMIP domain (see the call flow in
   Figure 2).  In this way, multicast source mobility is transparently
   enabled in PMIPv6 domains that deploy the base scenario for
   multicast.















Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


   MN1             MAG1             MN2             MAG2             LMA
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                | Mcast Data     |               |                |
   |                |<---------------+               |                |
   |                |     Mcast Data |               |                |
   |  Join(G)       +================================================>|
   +--------------> |                |               |                |
   | Mcast Data     |                |               |                |
   |<---------------+                |               |                |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |           <  Movement of MN 2 to MAG2  &  PMIP Binding Update  > |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |                |--- Rtr Sol -->|                |
   |                |                |<-- Rtr Adv ---|                |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |                |   < MLD Proxy Configuration >  |
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |                |   MLD Query   |                |
   |                |                |<--------------+                |
   |                |                |  Mcast Data   |                |
   |                |                +-------------->|                |
   |                |                |               | Mcast Data     |
   |                |                |               +===============>|
   |                |                |               |                |
   |                |   Mcast Data   |               |                |
   |                |<================================================+
   |  Mcast Data    |                |               |                |
   |<---------------+                |               |                |
   |                |                |               |                |

   Figure 2: Call Flow for Group Communication in Multicast-enabled PMIP

   These multicast deployment considerations likewise apply for mobile
   nodes that operate with their IPv4 stack enabled in a PMIPv6 domain.
   PMIPv6 can provide IPv4 home address mobility support [RFC5844].
   IPv4 multicast is handled by an IGMP proxy function at the MAG in an
   analogous way.

   Following these deployment steps, multicast traffic distribution
   transparently inter-operates with PMIPv6.  It is worth noting that a
   MN - while being attached to the same MAG as the mobile source, but
   associated with a different LMA, cannot receive multicast traffic on
   a shortest path.  Instead, multicast streams flow up to the LMA of
   the mobile source, are transferred to the LMA of the mobile listener
   and tunneled downwards to the MAG again (see Appendix A for further
   considerations).





Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


4.  Base Solution for Source Mobility: Details

   Incorporating multicast source mobility in PMIPv6 requires to deploy
   general multicast functions at PMIPv6 routers and to define their
   interaction with the PMIPv6 protocol in the following way.

4.1.  Operations of the Mobile Node

   A Mobile Node willing to send multicast data will proceed as if
   attached to the fixed Internet.  No specific mobility or other
   multicast related functionalities are required at the MN.

4.2.  Operations of the Mobile Access Gateway

   A Mobile Access Gateway is required to have MLD proxy instances
   deployed corresponding to each LMA, taking the corresponding tunnel
   as its unique upstream link, cf., [RFC6224].  On the arrival of a MN,
   the MAG decides on the mapping of downstream links to a proxy
   instance and the upstream link to the LMA based on the regular
   Binding Update List as maintained by PMIPv6 standard operations.
   When multicast data is received from the MN, the MAG MUST identify
   the corresponding proxy instance from the incoming interface and
   forwards multicast data upstream according to [RFC4605].

   The MAG MAY apply special admission control to enable multicast data
   transition from a MN.  It is advisable to take special care that MLD
   proxy implementations do not redistribute multicast data to
   downstream interfaces without appropriate subscriptions in place.

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 upstream for the
   corresponding MAG.  It will manage and maintain a multicast
   forwarding information base for all group traffic arriving from its
   mobile sources.  It SHOULD participate in multicast routing functions
   that enable traffic redistribution to all adjacent LMAs within the
   PMIPv6 domain and thereby ensure a continuous receptivity while the
   source is in motion.

4.3.1.  Local Mobility Anchors Operating PIM

   Local Mobility Anchors that operate the PIM routing protocol
   [RFC4601] will require sources to be directly connected for sending
   PIM registers to the RP.  This does not hold in a PMIPv6 domain, as
   MAGs are routers intermediate to MN and the LMA.  In this sense, MNs
   are multicast sources external to the PIM-SM domain.




Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


   To cure this defect common to all set-ups of subsidiary domains not
   running PIM, the LMA should act as a PIM Border Router and activate
   the Border-bit.  In this case, the DirectlyConnected(S) is treated as
   being TRUE for mobile sources and the PIM-SM forwarding rule "iif ==
   RPF_interface(S)" is relaxed to be TRUE, as the incoming tunnel
   interface from MAG to LMA is considered as not part of the PIM-SM
   component of the LMA (see A.1 of [RFC4601] ).

4.4.  IPv4 Support

   An MN in a PMIPv6 domain may use an IPv4 address transparently for
   communication as specified in [RFC5844].  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
   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.

   A particular note is worth giving the scenario of [RFC5845] in which
   overlapping private address spaces of different operators can be
   hosted in a PMIP domain by using GRE encapsulation with key
   identification.  This scenario implies that unicast communication in
   the MAG-LMA tunnel can be individually identified per MN by the GRE
   keys.  This scenario still does not impose any special treatment of
   multicast communication for the following reasons.

   Multicast streams from and to MNs arrive at a MAG on point-to-point
   links (identical to unicast). between the routers and independent of
   any individual MN.  So the MAG-proxy and the LMA SHOULD NOT use GRE
   key identifiers, but plain GRE encapsulation in multicast
   communication (including MLD queries and reports).  Multicast traffic
   sent upstream and downstream of MAG-to-LMA tunnels proceeds as
   router-to-router forwarding according to the multicast forwarding
   information base (MFIB) of the MAG or LMA and independent of MN's
   unicast addresses, while the MAG proxy instance re-distributes
   multicast data down the point-to-point links (interfaces) according
   to its own MFIB, independent of MN's IP addresses.



Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


4.5.  Efficiency of the Distribution System

   In the following efficiency-related issues are enumerated.

   Multicast reception at LMA  In the current deployment scenario, the
      LMA will receive all multicast traffic originating from its
      associated MNs.  There is no mechanism to suppress upstream
      forwarding in the absence of receivers.

   MNs on the same MAG using different LMAs  For a mobile receiver and a
      source that use different LMAs, the traffic has to go up to one
      LMA, cross over to the other LMA, and then be tunneled back to the
      same MAG, causing redundant flows in the access network and at the
      MAG.


5.  Multicast Routing Throughout the Access Network

   There are deployment scenarios, where multicast services are
   available throughout the access network independent of the PMIPv6
   infrastructure.  Direct multicast access can be supported by

   o  native multicast routing provided by one multicast router within a
      flat access network and MLD proxies deployed at MAGs,

   o  a multicast routing protocol such as PIM-SM [RFC4601] or BIDIR-PIM
      [RFC5015] deployed at the MAGs.

   Multicast traffic distribution can be simplified in these scenarios.
   A single proxy instance at MAGs with up-link into the multicast cloud
   will serve as a first hop gateway into the multicast routing domain
   and avoid traffic duplication or detour routing.  Multicast routing
   functions at MAGs will seemlessly embed PMIP mobility gateways within
   a multicast cloud.  However, mobility of the multicast source in this
   scenario will require some multicast routing protocols to rebuild
   distribution trees.  This can cause significant service disruptions
   or delays (see [RFC5757] for further aspects).  Deployment details
   are specific to the multicast routing protocol in use, in the
   following described for common protocols.

5.1.  PIM-SM

   TODO

5.2.  BIDIR PIM

   TODO




Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


6.  Extended Source Mobility Schemes in PMIPv6

   In this section, specific optimization approaches to multicast source
   mobility are introduced.

6.1.  Multiple Upstream Interface Proxy

   Although multicast communication can be enabled in PMIPv6 domains by
   deploying MLD Proxy functions at MAG, some disadvantages still exist.
   Firstly, for a proxy device performing IGMP/MLD-based forwarding has
   a single upstream interface and one or more downstream interfaces as
   described in RFC4605, there should be many MLD Proxy functions
   deployed at one MAG, which is complicated and then is difficult for
   implementation and management.  And then when the multicast packets
   arrive at the MAG running multiple parallel MLD proxy functions,
   there may be confusions for the data if there is no extra processing
   or filtering scheme at the MAG.  In addition, the route optimization
   issue is still up in the air, that is, for a mobile receiver and a
   source on the same MAG using different LMAs, the traffic has to go up
   to one LMA, cross over to the other LMA, and then be tunneled back to
   the same MAG, causing redundant flows in the access network and at
   the MAG.  Therefore, the MLD Proxy function should be extended to
   accommodate the PMIPv6 protocol.  As same as described in [RFC6224]
   and this document (s. abobe), the MLD proxy functions are deployed at
   the MAG, while only one MLD Proxy function is required to run at the
   MAG and multiple upstream interfaces can be set for the MLD Proxy
   instance, which is called Multi-Upstream Interfaces MLD Proxy
   (MUIMP).

   ....  TODO details.


7.  IANA Considerations

   TODO.

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


8.  Security Considerations

   This draft does not introduce additional messages or novel protocol
   operations.  Consequently, no new threats are introduced by this
   document in addition to those identified as security concerns of
   [RFC3810], [RFC4605], [RFC5213], and [RFC5844].

   However, particular attention should be paid to implications of



Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


   combining multicast and mobility management at network entities.  As
   this specification allows mobile nodes to initiate the creation of
   multicast forwarding states at MAGs and LMAs while changing
   attachments, threats of resource exhaustion at PMIP routers and
   access networks arrive from rapid state changes, as well as from high
   volume data streams routed into access networks of limited
   capacities.  In addition to proper authorization checks of MNs, rate
   controls at replicators MAY be required to protect the agents and the
   downstream networks.  In particular, MLD proxy implementations at
   MAGs SHOULD carefully procure for automatic multicast state
   extinction on the departure of MNs, as mobile multicast listeners in
   the PMIPv6 domain will not actively terminate group membership prior
   to departure.


9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Muhamma Omer
   Farooq, Jouni Korhonen, He-Wu Li, Stig Venaas Li-Li Wang, Qian Wu,
   Zhi-Wei Yan for advice, help and reviews of the document.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   [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.



Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.

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

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.

   [RFC6224]  Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
              Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
              IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC5757]  Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and G. Fairhurst, "Multicast
              Mobility in Mobile IP Version 6 (MIPv6): Problem Statement
              and Brief Survey", RFC 5757, February 2010.

   [RFC5845]  Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
              "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010.


Appendix A.  Evaluation of Traffic Flows

   TODO


Appendix B.  Change Log

   The following changes have been made from version
   draft-schmidt-multimob-pmipv6-source-00:











Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         Multicast Senders in PMIPv6         November 2011


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


   Shuai Gao
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing,
   China

   Phone:
   Fax:
   Email: shgao@bjtu.edu.cn
   URI:


   Hong-Ke Zhang
   Beijing Jiaotong University
   Beijing,
   China

   Phone:
   Fax:
   Email: hkzhang@bjtu.edu.cn
   URI:


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

   Email: mw@link-lab.net










Schmidt, Ed., et al.      Expires May 17, 2012                 [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/