draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-05.txt   draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-06.txt 
MULTIMOB Group T C. Schmidt MULTIMOB Group T C. Schmidt
Internet-Draft HAW Hamburg Internet-Draft HAW Hamburg
Intended status: BCP M. Waehlisch Intended status: BCP M. Waehlisch
Expires: January 29, 2011 link-lab & FU Berlin Expires: April 28, 2011 link-lab & FU Berlin
S. Krishnan S. Krishnan
Ericsson Ericsson
July 28, 2010 October 25, 2010
Base Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in PMIPv6 Domains Base Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in PMIPv6 Domains
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-05 draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-06
Abstract Abstract
This document describes deployment options for activating multicast This document describes deployment options for activating multicast
listener functions in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains without modifying listener functions in Proxy Mobile IPv6 domains without modifying
mobility and multicast protocol standards. Similar to Home Agents in mobility and multicast protocol standards. Similar to Home Agents in
Mobile IPv6, Local Mobility Anchors of Proxy Mobile IPv6 serve as Mobile IPv6, Local Mobility Anchors of Proxy Mobile IPv6 serve as
multicast subscription anchor points, while Mobile Access Gateways multicast subscription anchor points, while Mobile Access Gateways
provide MLD proxy functions. In this scenario, Mobile Nodes remain provide MLD proxy functions. In this scenario, Mobile Nodes remain
agnostic of multicast mobility operations. A support for mobile agnostic of multicast mobility operations. A support for mobile
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
skipping to change at page 13, line 13 skipping to change at page 13, line 13
may be used to preserve bandwidth on the MAG-MN link. may be used to preserve bandwidth on the MAG-MN link.
5. Message Source and Destination Address 5. Message Source and Destination Address
This section describes source and destination addresses of MLD This section describes source and destination addresses of MLD
messages and encapsulating outer headers when deployed in the PMIPv6 messages and encapsulating outer headers when deployed in the PMIPv6
domain. This overview is for clarification purposes, only, and does domain. This overview is for clarification purposes, only, and does
not define a behavior different from referenced standards in any way. not define a behavior different from referenced standards in any way.
The interface identifier A-B denotes an interface on node A, which is The interface identifier A-B denotes an interface on node A, which is
connected to node B. This includes tunnel interfaces. connected to node B. This includes tunnel interfaces. Destination
addresses for MLD/IGMP messages SHALL be as specified in Section 8.
of [RFC2710] for MLDv1, and Section 5.1.15. and Section 5.2.14. of
[RFC3810] for MLDv2.
5.1. Query 5.1. Query
+===========+================+======================+==========+ +===========+================+======================+==========+
| Interface | Source Address | Destination Address | Header | | Interface | Source Address | Destination Address | Header |
+===========+================+======================+==========+ +===========+================+======================+==========+
| | LMAA | Proxy-CoA | outer | | | LMAA | Proxy-CoA | outer |
+ LMA-MAG +----------------+----------------------+----------+ + LMA-MAG +----------------+----------------------+----------+
| | LMA-link-local | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] | inner | | | LMA-link-local | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] | inner |
+-----------+----------------+----------------------+----------+ +-----------+----------------+----------------------+----------+
| MAG-MN | MAG-link-local | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] | -- | | MAG-MN | MAG-link-local | [RFC2710], [RFC3810] | -- |
skipping to change at page 15, line 27 skipping to change at page 15, line 30
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010. Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast] [I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast]
Thaler, D., Talwar, M., Aggarwal, A., Vicisano, L., and T. Thaler, D., Talwar, M., Aggarwal, A., Vicisano, L., and T.
Pusateri, "Automatic IP Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels Pusateri, "Automatic IP Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels
(AMT)", draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-10 (work in (AMT)", draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-10 (work in
progress), March 2010. progress), March 2010.
[I-D.zuniga-multimob-smspmip]
Zuniga, J., Lu, G., and A. Rahman, "Support Multicast
Services Using Proxy Mobile IPv6",
draft-zuniga-multimob-smspmip-03 (work in progress),
May 2010.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997. 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC5757] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and G. Fairhurst, "Multicast [RFC5757] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and G. Fairhurst, "Multicast
Mobility in Mobile IP Version 6 (MIPv6): Problem Statement Mobility in Mobile IP Version 6 (MIPv6): Problem Statement
and Brief Survey", RFC 5757, February 2010. and Brief Survey", RFC 5757, February 2010.
[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010. Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010.
skipping to change at page 17, line 7 skipping to change at page 17, line 7
igmpv3proxy/. igmpv3proxy/.
Linux ecmh MLDv1/2 Proxy implementation without IGMP support that Linux ecmh MLDv1/2 Proxy implementation without IGMP support that
inspects IPv4 tunnels and detects encapsulated MLD messages. inspects IPv4 tunnels and detects encapsulated MLD messages.
Allows for dynamic addition of interfaces at runtime and multiple Allows for dynamic addition of interfaces at runtime and multiple
instances. However, downstream interfaces cannot be configured. instances. However, downstream interfaces cannot be configured.
Project page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ecmh/ Project page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ecmh/
Appendix C. Comparative Evaluation of Different Approaches Appendix C. Comparative Evaluation of Different Approaches
In this section, we briefly evaluate two basic PMIP concepts for In this section, we briefly evaluate two orthogonal PMIP concepts for
multicast traffic organization at LMAs: In scenario A, multicast is multicast traffic organization at LMAs: In scenario A, multicast is
provided by combined unicast/multicast LMAs as described in this provided by combined unicast/multicast LMAs as described in this
document. Scenario B directs traffic via a dedicated multicast LMA document. Scenario B directs traffic via a dedicated, central
as proposed in [I-D.zuniga-multimob-smspmip], for example. multicast router ("LMA-M") that tunnels packets to MAGs independent
of unicast hand-offs.
Both approaches do not establish native multicast distribution Both approaches do not establish native multicast distribution
between the LMA and MAG, but use tunneling mechanisms. In scenario between the LMA and MAG, but use tunneling mechanisms. In scenario
A, a MAG is connected to different multicast-enabled LMAs, and can A, a MAG is connected to different multicast-enabled LMAs, and can
receive the same multicast stream via multiple paths depending on the receive the same multicast stream via multiple paths depending on the
group subscriptions of MNs and their associated LMAs. This problem, group subscriptions of MNs and their associated LMAs. This problem,
a.k.a. tunnel convergence problem, may lead to redundant traffic at a.k.a. tunnel convergence problem, may lead to redundant traffic at
the MAGs. Scenario B in contrast configures MAGs to establish a the MAGs. Scenario B in contrast configures MAGs to establish a
tunnel to a single, dedicated multicast LMA for all attached MNs and tunnel to a single, dedicated multicast LMA for all attached MNs and
relocates overhead costs to the multicast anchor. This eliminates relocates overhead costs to the multicast anchor. This eliminates
skipping to change at page 18, line 35 skipping to change at page 18, line 35
+===================+==============+================+===============+ +===================+==============+================+===============+
| Combined Unicast/ | 3 | 200 | 800 | | Combined Unicast/ | 3 | 200 | 800 |
| Multicast LMA | | | | | Multicast LMA | | | |
+-------------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+ +-------------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Dedicated | 0 | 200 | 200 | | Dedicated | 0 | 200 | 200 |
| Multicast LMA | | | | | Multicast LMA | | | |
+-------------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+ +-------------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
1,000,000 MNs are subscribed to the same multicast group 1,000,000 MNs are subscribed to the same multicast group
These considerations of extremal settings show that tunnel These considerations of extremal settings show that packet
duplication and replication effects apply in changing intensities for
different use cases of multicast data services. However, tunnel
convergence, i.e., duplicate data arriving at a MAG, does cause much convergence, i.e., duplicate data arriving at a MAG, does cause much
smaller problems in scalability than the stream replication at LMAs smaller problems in scalability than the stream replication at LMAs
(avalanche problem). For scenario A it should be also noted that the (avalanche problem). For scenario A, it should be also noted that
high stream replication requirements at LMAs in setting 1 can be the high stream replication requirements at LMAs in setting 1 can be
attenuated by deploying additional LMAs in a PMIP domain, while attenuated by deploying additional LMAs in a PMIP domain, while
scenario B does not allow for distributing the LMA-M, as no handover scenario B does not allow for distributing the LMA-M, as no handover
management is available at LMA-M. management is available at LMA-M.
Appendix D. Change Log Appendix D. Change Log
The following changes have been made from version The following changes have been made from version
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-05.
1. Clarification and section-based reference to destination
addresses in MLD in response to WG feedback.
2. Removed reference to individual draft-zuniga-multimob-smspmip in
Appendix C and added explanations in response to WG feedback.
The following changes have been made from version
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-04. draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-04.
1. Clarifications and editorial improvements in response to WG 1. Clarifications and editorial improvements in response to WG
feedback. feedback.
The following changes have been made from version The following changes have been made from version
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-03. draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-base-solution-03.
1. Clarifications and editorial improvements in response to WG 1. Clarifications and editorial improvements in response to WG
feedback. feedback.
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 26 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/