Hi Juan Liu,
thanks - please see inline.
On 01.08.2012 22:17, [email protected] wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:45:40 -0700
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [multimob] Direct Multicast Routing & the Deployment of
PIM-SM(Juan Liu)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Hi Juan Liu,
please see inline.
On 01.08.2012 19:27, [email protected] wrote:
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:01:56 -0700
>> From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email protected]>
>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> Subject: [multimob] Direct Multicast Routing & the Deployment of
>> PIM-SM
>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> after Monday's presentation of PIM deployment options
>> (draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source), there was the discussion on further
>> optimization options. In detail, the idea was raised to reach MNs not
>> via their (permanent) HNP advertisements at the LMA, but directly at
>> their current MAGs. The latter would require a dynamic unicast routing
>> protocol in the access network.
> In order that multicast traffic reach MNs directly via MAG-MAG tunnel not
> via LMA-MAG tunnel,MRIB can be constructed using route from the tunnel
> between MAGs(draft-liu-multimob-pmipv6-multicast-ro).
The scenario of your draft is a completely different one: If I
understood correctly, you distribute traffic in an overlay. (construct a
mesh of tunnels between MAGs, inquire routes to MNs via an LMA-based
on-demand search and then select the proper tunnel for forwarding).
Yes, you are right.
This is different from what we refer to by the term "direct (or
localized) routing".
This is somewhat similar to LR solution in the sense of routing via
MAG-MAG tunnel.
>>
>> I promised to talk to Sri about this (underlying unicast) approach. As
>> expected, Sri emphasized that the PMIP WGs intentionally do *not*
>> consider this a working option. The reason is that node mobility
>> typically is more intense and faster than unicast routing dynamics.
>> Advertising MN's HNPs throughout the access network would cause route
>> pollution and convergence problems and quickly lead to inconsistencies.
>> For the unicast case, this is the equivalent of pushing multicast
>> mobility management into multicast routing, which we equally avoid.
> About the working option you talk with Sri,does it refer to direct
> routing via MAGs,
> which in PMIP WG unicast routing through MAG-MAG tunnel is an acceptable
> optimization
> options for PMIPv6 routing. Hope i'm not wrong about this.
We didn't talk about overlay solutions. We just addressed the
straight-forward deployment of dynamic unicast routing protocols like
iBGP or OSPF. So nothing was said about your draft.
Now i see :)
Then will it be possible to adopt our overlay solution as the optimization
option with your draft?
Please allow some time to study your proposal in detail. We'll try to
provide a review soon.
Best regards,
Thomas
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
? Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 ?
? Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany ?
? http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 ?
? http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 ?
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
End of multimob Digest, Vol 63, Issue 4
***************************************
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and
any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not an intended
recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or
use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
