Multicast Listener Extensions for MIPv6 and PMIPv6 Fast Handovers
draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7411.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas C. Schmidt , Matthias Wählisch , Rajeev Koodli , Gorry Fairhurst , Dapeng Liu | ||
| Last updated | 2014-02-14 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7411 (Experimental) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-03
MULTIMOB Group T. Schmidt, Ed.
Internet-Draft HAW Hamburg
Intended status: Experimental M. Waehlisch
Expires: August 19, 2014 link-lab & FU Berlin
R. Koodli
Cisco Systems
G. Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
Dapeng. Liu
China Mobile
February 15, 2014
Multicast Listener Extensions for MIPv6 and PMIPv6 Fast Handovers
draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-03
Abstract
Fast handover protocols for MIPv6 and PMIPv6 define mobility
management procedures that support unicast communication at reduced
handover latency. Fast handover base operations do not affect
multicast communication, and hence do not accelerate handover
management for native multicast listeners. Many multicast
applications like IPTV or conferencing, though, are comprised of
delay-sensitive real-time traffic and will benefit from fast handover
execution. This document specifies extension of the Mobile IPv6 Fast
Handovers (FMIPv6) and the Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6
(PFMIPv6) protocols to include multicast traffic management in fast
handover operations. This multicast support is provided first at the
control plane by a management of rapid context transfer between
access routers, second at the data plane by an optional fast traffic
forwarding that may include buffering.
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."
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
1.1. Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Multicast Context Transfer between Access Routers . . . . 6
3.2. Protocol Operations Specific to FMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Protocol Operations Specific to FMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.1. Operations of the Mobile Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.2. Operations of the Previous Access Router . . . . . . 14
4.1.3. Operations of the New Access Router . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.4. Buffering Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6 . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.1. Operations of the Mobile Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2. Operations of the Previous MAG . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.3. Operations of the New MAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.4. IPv4 Support Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Multicast Indicator for Proxy Router Advertisement
(PrRtAdv) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Extensions to Existing Mobility Header Messages . . . . . 19
5.3. New Multicast Mobility Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. New Multicast Acknowledgement Option . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.5. Length Considerations: Number of Records and Addresses . 23
5.6. MLD (IGMP) Compatibility Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] defines a network layer mobility protocol
involving participation by mobile nodes, while Proxy Mobile IPv6
[RFC5213] provides a mechanism without requiring mobility protocol
operations at a Mobile Node (MN). Both protocols introduce traffic
disruptions on handovers that may be intolerable in many real-time
application scenarios such as gaming or conferencing. Mobile IPv6
Fast Handovers (FMIPv6) [RFC5568], and Fast Handovers for Proxy
Mobile IPv6 (PFMIPv6) [RFC5949] improve the performance of these
handover delays for unicast communication to the order of the maximum
of the delays needed for link switching and signaling between Access
Routers (ARs) or Mobile Access Gateways (MAGs) [FMIPv6-Analysis].
No dedicated treatment of seamless multicast data service has been
proposed by any of the above protocols. MIPv6 only roughly defines
multicast for Mobile Nodes using a remote subscription approach or a
home subscription through bi-directional tunneling via the Home Agent
(HA). Multicast forwarding services have not been specified at all
in [RFC5213], but are subject to current specification [RFC6224],
[I-D.ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source]. It is assumed throughout this
document that mechanisms and protocol operations are in place to
transport multicast traffic to ARs. These operations are referred to
as 'JOIN/LEAVE' of an AR, while the explicit techniques to manage
multicast transmission are beyond the scope of this document.
Mobile multicast protocols need to serve applications such as IPTV
with high-volume content streams to be distributed to potentially
large numbers of receivers, and therefore should preserve the
multicast nature of packet distribution and approximate optimal
routing [RFC5757]. It is undesirable to rely on home tunneling for
optimizing multicast. Unencapsulated, native multicast transmission
requires establishing forwarding state, which will not be transferred
between access routers by the unicast fast handover protocols. Thus
multicast traffic will not experience expedited handover performance,
but an MN - or its corresponding MAG in PMIPv6 - can perform remote
subscriptions in each visited network.
This document specifies extensions to FMIPv6 and PFMIPv6 that include
multicast traffic management for fast handover operations. The
protocol extensions were designed under the requirements that
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
o multicast context transfer shall be transparently included in
unicast fast handover operations
o neither unicast mobility protocols nor multicast routing shall be
modified or otherwise affected
o no active participation of MNs in PMIPv6 domains is defined.
The solution common to both underlying unicast protocols defines the
per-group transfer of multicast contexts between ARs or MAGs. The
protocol defines corresponding message extensions necessary for
carrying group context information independent of the particular
handover protocol. ARs or MAGs are then enabled to treat multicast
traffic according to fast unicast handovers and with similar
performance. No protocol changes are introduced that prevent a
multicast unaware node from performing fast handovers with multicast
aware ARs or MAGs.
The specified mechanisms apply when a mobile node has joined and
maintains one or several multicast group subscriptions prior to
undergoing a fast handover. It does not introduce any requirements
on the multicast routing protocols in use, nor are the ARs or MAGs
assumed to be multicast routers. It assumes network conditions,
though, that allow native multicast reception in both, the previous
and new access network. Methods to bridge regions without native
multicast connectivity are beyond the scope of this document.
1.1. Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios
Multicast Extensions for Fast Handovers enable multicast services in
those domains that operate any of the unicast fast handover protocols
[RFC5568] or [RFC5949]. Typically, fast handover protocols are
activated within an operator network or within a dedicated service
installation.
Multicast group communication has a variety of dominant use cases.
One traditional application area is infotainment with voluminous
multimedia streams delivered to a large number of receivers (e.g.,
IPTV). Other time-critical news items like stock-exchange prices are
commonly transmitted via multicast to support fair and fast updates.
Both may be mobile and both largely benefit from fast handover
operations. Operators may enhance their operational quality or offer
premium services by enabling fast handovers.
Another traditional application area for multicast is conversational
group communication in scenarios like conferencing or gaming, but
also in dedicated collaborative environments or teams. Machine-to-
machine communication in the emerging Internet of Things is expected
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
to generate various additional mobile use cases (e.g., among cars).
High demands on transmission quality and rapidly moving parties may
require fast handovers.
Most of the deployment scenarios above are bound to a fixed
infrastructure with consumer equipment at the edge. Today, they are
thus likely to follow an operator-centric approach like PFMIPv6.
However, Internet technologies evolve for adoption in
infrastructureless scenarios at disaster recovery, rescue, crisis
prevention and civil safety. Mobile end-to-end communication in
groups is needed in Public Protection and Disaster Relief (PPDR)
scenarios, where mobile multicast communication needs to be supported
between members of rescue teams, police officers, fire brigade teams,
paramedic teams, command control offices in order to support the
protection and health of citizens. These use cases require fast and
reliable mobile services which cannot rely on operator
infrastructure. They are thus predestined to running multicast with
FMIPv6.
2. Terminology
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].
The use of the term, "silently ignore" is not defined in RFC 2119.
However, the term is used in this document and can be similarly
construed.
This document uses the terminology of [RFC5568], [RFC5949],
[RFC6275], and [RFC5213] for mobility entities.
3. Protocol Overview
This section provides an informative overview of the protocol
mechanisms without normative specifications.
The reference scenario for multicast fast handover is illustrated in
Figure 1.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
*** *** *** ***
* ** ** ** *
* *
* Multicast Cloud *
* *
* ** ** ** *
*** *** *** ***
/ \
/ \
/ \
+........../..+ +..\..........+
. +-------+-+ .______. +-+-------+ .
. | PAR |()_______)| NAR | .
. | (PMAG) | . . | (NMAG) | .
. +----+----+ . . +----+----+ .
. | . . | .
. ___|___ . . ___|___ .
. / \ . . / \ .
. ( P-AN ) . . ( N-AN ) .
. \_______/ . . \_______/ .
. | . . | .
. +----+ . . +----+ .
. | MN | ----------> | MN | .
. +----+ . . +----+ .
+.............+ +.............+
Figure 1: Reference Network for Fast Handover
3.1. Multicast Context Transfer between Access Routers
In a fast handover scenario (cf. Figure 1), ARs/MAGs establish a
mutual binding and provide the capability to exchange context
information concerning the MN. This context transfer will be
triggered by detecting the forthcoming movement of an MN to a new AR
and assist the MN to immediately resume communication on the new
subnet using its previous IP address. In contrast to unicast,
multicast flow reception does not primarily depend on address and
binding cache management, but requires distribution trees to adapt so
that traffic follows the movement of the MN. This process may be
significantly slower than fast handover management [RFC5757].
Multicast listeners at handover may offer the twofold advantage of
including the multicast groups under subscription in context
transfer. First, the NAR can proactively join the subscribed groups
as soon as it gains knowledge of them. Second, multicast flows can
be included in traffic forwarding via the tunnel established from PAR
to NAR.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
There are two modes of operation in FMIPv6 and in PFMIPv6. The
predictive mode allows for AR-binding and context transfer prior to
an MN handover, while in the reactive mode, these steps are executed
after detection that the MN has re-attached to NAR. Details of the
signaling schemes differ between FMIPv6 and PFMIPv6 and are outlined
in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3.
In a predictive fast handover, the access router (i.e., PAR (PMAG) in
Figure 1) learns about the impending movement of the MN and
simultaneously about the multicast group context as specified in
Section 3.2 and Section 3.3. Thereafter, the PAR will initiate an
AR-binding and context transfer by transmitting a HI message to NAR
(NMAG). HI is extended by multicast group states carried in mobility
header options as defined in Section 5.3. On reception of the HI
message, NAR returns a multicast acknowledgement in its HACK answer
that indicates its ability to support each requested group (see
Section 5.4). NAR (NMAG) expresses its willingness to receive
multicast traffic from forwarding by PAR using standard MLD
signaling. There are several reasons to waive forwarding, e.g., the
NAR could already have a native subscription for the group(s), or
capacity constraints can hinder decapsulation of additional streams.
At the previous network, there may be policy of capacity constraints
that make it undesirable to forward the multicast traffic. The PAR
can add the tunnel interface to its multicast forwarding database for
those groups the MN wishes to receive, so that multicast flows can be
forwarded in parallel to the unicast traffic. The NAR implements an
MLD proxy [RFC4605] providing host-side behaviour towards the
upstream PAR. The proxy will submit an MLD report to the upstream
tunnel interface to indicate the set of groups to be forwarded. It
will terminate multicast forwarding from the tunnel when the group is
natively received. In parallel, NAR joins all groups that are not
already under subscription using its native multicast upstream
interface. While the MN has not arrived at a downstream interface of
the NAR, multicast subscriptions on behalf of the MN are associated
with Loopback as a downstream interface. Reception of the Join at
the NAR enables downstream native multicast forwarding of the
subscribed group(s).
In a reactive fast handover, the PAR will learn about the movement of
the MN, after the latter has re-associated with the new access
network. Also from the new link, it will be informed about the
multicast context of the MN. As group membership information is
present at the new access network prior to context transfer, MLD join
signaling can proceed in parallel to HI/HACK exchange. Following the
context transfer, multicast data can be forwarded to the new access
network using the PAR-NAR tunnel of the fast handover protocol.
Depending on the specific network topology multicast traffic for some
groups may natively arrive before it is forwarded from PAR.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
In both modes of operation, it is the responsibility of the PAR
(PMAG) to properly apply multicast state management when an MN
leaves. Depending on the link type and MLD parameter settings,
methods for observing the departure of an MN need to be applied (cf.,
[RFC5757]). While considering subscriptions of the remaining nodes
and from the tunnel interfaces, the PAR uses normal multicast
forwarding rules to determine whether multicast traffic can be
pruned.
This method allows an MN to participate in multicast group
communication with a handover performance that is comparable to
unicast handover.
3.2. Protocol Operations Specific to FMIPv6
ARs that provide multicast support in FMIPv6 will advertise this
general service by setting an indicator bit (M-bit) in its PrRtAdv
message as defined in Section 5.1. Additional details about the
multicast service support, e.g., flavors and groups, will be
exchanged within HI/HACK dialogs later at handovers.
An MN operating FMIPv6 will actively initiate the handover management
by submitting a fast binding update (FBU). The MN, which is aware of
the multicast groups it wishes to maintain, will attach mobility
options containing its group states (see Section 5.3) to the FBU, and
thereby inform ARs about its multicast context. ARs will use these
multicast context options for inter-AR context transfer.
In predictive mode, the FBU is issued on the previous link and
received by the PAR as displayed in Figure 2. The PAR will extract
the multicast context options and append them to its HI message.
From the HACK message, PAR will redistribute the multicast
acknowledgement by adding the corresponding mobility options to its
FBACK message. From receiving the FBACK message, the MN will group-
wise learn about the multicast support in the new access network. If
some groups or multicast service models are not supported, it can
decide on taking actions to overcome the missing service (e.g., by
tunneling). Note that the proactive multicast context transfer may
proceed successfully, even if the MN misses the FBACK message on the
previous link.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
MN PAR NAR
| | |
|------RtSolPr------->| |
|<-----PrRtAdv--------| |
| | |
| | |
|---------FBU-------->|----------HI--------->|
| (Multicast MobOpt) | (Multicast MobOpt) |
| | |
| |<--------HAck---------|
| | (Multicast AckOpt) |
| | Join to
| | Multicast
| | Groups
| | |
| <-----FBack---|--FBack------> |
| (Multicast AckOpt) | (Multicast AckOpt) |
| | |
disconnect optional |
| packet ================>|
| forwarding |
| | |
connect | |
| | |
|------------UNA --------------------------->|
|<=================================== deliver packets
| |
Figure 2: Predictive Multicast Handover for FMIPv6
The flow diagram for reactive mode is visualized in Figure 3. After
attaching to the new access link and performing an unsolicited
neighbor advertisement (UNA), the MN issues an FBU which the NAR
forwards to the PAR without processing. At this time, the MN is able
to re-join all subscribed multicast groups without relying on AR
assistance. Nevertheless, multicast context options are exchanged in
the HI/HACK dialog to facilitate intermediate forwarding of requested
flows. The multicast traffic could arrive from a MN subscription at
the same time the NAR receives the HI message. Such multicast flows
may be transparently excluded from forwarding by setting an
appropriate multicast acknowledge option. In either case, the NAR
MUST ensure that not more than one flow of the same group is
forwarded to the MN.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
MN PAR NAR
| | |
|------RtSolPr------->| |
|<-----PrRtAdv--------| |
| | |
disconnect | |
| | |
| | |
connect | |
|-------UNA-----------|--------------------->|
|-------FBU-----------|---------------------)|
| (Multicast MobOpt) |<-------FBU----------)|
| | |
Join to | |
Multicast | |
Groups | |
| |----------HI--------->|
| | (Multicast MobOpt) |
| |<-------HAck----------|
| | (Multicast AckOpt) |
| | |
| |(HI/HAck if necessary)|
| | |
| FBack, optional |
| packet forwarding ==========>|
| | |
|<=================================== deliver packets
| |
Figure 3: Reactive Multicast Handover for FMIPv6
3.3. Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6
In a proxy mobile IPv6 environment, the MN remains agnostic of
network layer changes, and fast handover procedures are operated by
the access routers or MAGs. The handover initiation, or the re-
association respectively are managed by the access networks.
Consequently, access routers need to be aware of multicast membership
state at the mobile node. There are two ways to obtain the multicast
membership of an MN. First, MAGs may perform explicit tracking (see
[RFC4605], [RFC6224]) or extract membership status from forwarding
states at node-specific point-to-point links. Second, routers can
issue a general MLD query at handovers. Both methods are equally
applicable. However, a router that does not operate explicit
tracking needs to query its downstream links after a handover. The
MLD membership information then allows the PAR to know the multicast
group subscriptions of the MN.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
In predictive mode, the PMAG (PAR) will learn about the upcoming
movement of the mobile node. Without explicit tracking, it will
immediately submit a general MLD query and receive MLD reports for
the subscribed group(s). As displayed in Figure 4, it will initiate
binding and context transfer with the NMAG (NAR) by issuing a HI
message that is augmented by multicast contexts in the mobility
options defined in Section 5.3. NAR will extract multicast context
information and act as described in Section 3.1.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
PMAG NMAG
MN P-AN N-AN (PAR) (NAR)
| | | | |
| Report | | | |
|---(MN ID,-->| | | |
| New AP ID) | | | |
| | HO Indication | |
| |--(MN ID, New AP ID)-->| |
| | | | |
| | | Optional: |
| | | MLD Query |
| | | | |
| | | |------HI---->|
| | | |(Multicast MobOpt)
| | | | |
| | | |<---HAck-----|
| | | |(Multicast AckOpt)
| | | | |
| | | | Join to
| | | | Multicast
| | | | Groups
| | | | |
| | | |HI/HAck(optional)
| | | |<- - - - - ->|
| | | | |
| | | optional packet |
| | | forwarding =======>|
disconnect | | | |
| | | | |
connect | | | |
| MN-AN connection | AN-MAG connection |
|<----establishment----->|<----establishment------->|
| | | (substitute for UNA) |
| | | | |
|<========================================== deliver packets
| | | | |
Figure 4: Predictive Multicast Handover for PFMIPv6
In reactive mode, the NMAG (NAR) will learn the attachment of the MN
to the N-AN and establish connectivity using the PMIPv6 protocol
operations. However, it will have no knowledge about multicast state
at the MN. Triggered by a MN attachment, the NMAG will send a
general MLD query and thereafter join the requested groups. In the
case of a reactive handover, the binding is initiated by the NMAG,
and the HI/HACK message semantic is inverted (see [RFC5949]). For
multicast context transfer, the NMAG attaches to its HI message those
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
group identifiers it requests to be forwarded from PMAG. Using the
identical syntax in its multicast mobility option headers as defined
in Section 5.4, the PMAG acknowledges the set of requested groups in
a HACK answer, indicating the group(s) it is willing to forward . The
corresponding call flow is displayed in Figure 5.
PMAG NMAG
MN P-AN N-AN (PAR) (NAR)
| | | | |
disconnect | | | |
| | | | |
connect | | | |
| | | | |
| MN-AN connection | AN-MAG connection |
|<---establishment---->|<----establishment------->|
| | |(substitute for UNA & FBU)|
| | | | |
| | | | MLD Query
| | | | |
| | | | Join to
| | | | Multicast
| | | | Groups
| | | |
| | | |<------HI----|
| | | |(Multicast MobOpt)
| | | | |
| | | |---HAck----->|
| | | |(Multicast AckOpt)
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | |HI/HAck(optional)
| | | |<- - - - - ->|
| | | | |
| | | optional packet |
| | | forwarding =======>|
| | | | |
|<======================================== deliver packets
| | | | |
Figure 5: Reactive Multicast Handover for PFMIPv6
4. Protocol Details
In this section the protocol operations are defined in a normative
way.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
4.1. Protocol Operations Specific to FMIPv6
4.1.1. Operations of the Mobile Node
A Mobile Node willing to manage multicast traffic by fast handover
operations MUST inform about its MLD listener state records within
the process of handover signaling.
When sensing a handover in predictive mode, an MN MUST build a
Multicast Mobility Option as described in Section 5.3 that contains
the MLD (IGMP) multicast listener state and append it to the Fast
Binding Update (FBU) prior to signaling with PAR. It will receive
the Multicast Acknowledgement Option(s) as part of Fast Binding
Acknowledge (FBack) (see Section 5.4) and learn about unsupported or
prohibited groups at the NAR. The MN MAY take appropriate actions
like home tunneling to bridge missing multicast services in the new
access network. No multicast-specific operation is required by the
MN when re-attaching in the new network besides standard FMIPv6
signaling.
In reactive mode, the MN MUST append the identical Multicast Mobility
Option to FBU sent after its reconnect. In response, it will learn
about the Multicast Acknowledgement Option(s) from FBACK and expect
corresponding multicast data. Concurrently it joins all subscribed
multicast groups (channels) directly on its newly established access
link.
4.1.2. Operations of the Previous Access Router
A PAR MUST advertise its multicast support by setting the M-bit in
PrRtAdv.
In predictive mode, a PAR will receive the multicast listener state
of an MN prior to handover from the Multicast Mobility Option
appended to the FBU. It forwards these records to NAR within HI
messages and will expect Multicast Acknowledgement Option(s) in HACK,
which itself is returned to the MN as an appendix to FBACK. In
performing multicast context exchange, the PAR is instructed to
include the PAR-to-NAR tunnel obtained from unicast handover
management in its multicast downstream interfaces and await MLD
listener reports from NAR. In response to receiving multicast
subscriptions, PAR SHOULD normally forward group data acting as a
regular multicast router or proxy. However, PAR MAY refuse to
forward some or all of the multicast flows (e.g., due to
administrative configurations or load conditions).
In reactive mode, PAR will receive the FBU augmented by the Multicast
Mobility Option from the new network, but continues with an identical
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
multicast record exchange in the HI/HACk dialog. As in the
predictive case, it configures the PAR-to-NAR tunnel for multicast
downstream and SHOULD forward data according to MLD reports obtained
from NAR, if capable of forwarding.
In both modes, PAR SHOULD interpret the first of the two events - the
departure of the MN or the reception of the Multicast Acknowledgement
Option(s) - as a multicast LEAVE message of the MN and react
according to the signaling scheme deployed in the access network
(i.e., MLD querying, explicit tracking).
4.1.3. Operations of the New Access Router
NAR MUST advertise its multicast support by setting the M-bit in
PrRtAdv.
In predictive mode, a NAR will receive the multicast listener state
of an expected MN from the Multicast Mobility Option appended to the
HI message. It will extract the MLD/IGMP records from the message
and intersect the request subscription with its multicast service
offer. Further on it will adjoin the supported groups (channels) to
the MLD listener state using loopback as downstream interface. This
will lead to suitable regular subscriptions on its native multicast
upstream interface without additional forwarding. Concurrently, NAR
builds a Multicast Acknowledgement Option(s) (see Section 5.4)
listing those groups (channels) unsupported on the new access link
and returns them within HACK. As soon as the bidirectional tunnel
from PAR to NAR is operational, NAR joins the groups subscribed for
forwarding on the tunnel link.
In reactive mode, NAR will learn about the multicast listener state
of a new MN from the Multicast Mobility Option appended to HI at a
time, when the MN has already performed local subscriptions of the
multicast service. Thus NAR solely determines the intersection of
requested and supported groups (channels) and issues the join
requests for group forwarding on the PAR-NAR tunnel interface.
In both modes, NAR MUST send a LEAVE message to the tunnel
immediately after forwarding of a group (channel) becomes unneeded,
e.g., after native multicast traffic arrives or group membership of
the MN terminates.
4.1.4. Buffering Considerations
Multicast packets may be lost during handover. For example, in
predictive mode as illustrated by figure 2, packets may be lost while
the MN is - already or still - detached from the networks, even
though they are forwarded to NAR. In reactive mode as illustrated by
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
figure 3, the situation may be worse since there will be a delay for
joining the multicast group after the MN re-attaches to the NAR.
Multicast packets cannot be delivered during this time. Buffering
the multicast packets at the PAR can ease the multicast packet loss
problem, but may increase resource consumption and delay in packet
transmission. Implementors should carefully balance the different
requirements in the context of predominant application demands (e.g.,
real-time requirements).
4.2. Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6
4.2.1. Operations of the Mobile Node
A Mobile Node willing to participate in multicast traffic will join,
maintain and leave groups as if located in the fixed Internet. It
will cooperate in handover indication as specified in [RFC5949] and
required by its access link-layer technology. No multicast-specific
mobility actions nor implementations are required at the MN in a
PMIPv6 domain.
4.2.2. Operations of the Previous MAG
A MAG receiving a handover indication for one of its MNs follows the
predictive fast handover mode as a PMAG. It MUST issue an MLD
General Query immediately on its corresponding link unless it
performs an explicit tracking on that link. After knowledge of the
multicast subscriptions of the MN is acquired, the PMAG builds a
Multicast Mobility Option as described in Section 5.3 that contains
the MLD (IGMP) multicast listener state. If not empty, this Mobility
Option is appended to the regular fast handover HI messages, or - in
the case of unicast HI message being submitted prior to multicast
state detection - sent in an additional HI message to the NMAG. PMAG
then waits for receiving the Multicast Acknowledgement Option(s) with
HACK (see Section 5.4) and the creation of the bidirectional tunnel
with NMAG. After HACK is received, the PMAG adds the tunnel to its
downstream interfaces in the multicast forwarding database. For
those groups (channels) reported in the Multicast Acknowledgement
Option(s), i.e., not supported in the new access network, PMAG
normally takes appropriate actions (e.g., forwarding, termination) in
concordance with the network policy. It SHOULD start forwarding
traffic down the tunnel interface for those groups an MLD listener
report was received from NMAG. However, it MAY deny forwarding
service. After the departure of the MN and on the reception of LEAVE
messages for groups/channels, PMAG MUST terminate forwarding of the
specific groups and update its multicast forwarding database.
Correspondingly it issues a group/channel LEAVE to its upstream link,
if no more listeners are present on its downstream links.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
A MAG receiving a HI message with Multicast Mobility Option for a
currently attached node follows the reactive fast handover mode as a
PMAG. It will return Multicast Acknowledgement Option(s) (see
Section 5.4) within HACK listing those groups/channels it does not
support to forward to the NMAG. It will add the bidirectional tunnel
with NMAG to its downstream interfaces and will start forwarding
multicast traffic for those groups it receives an MLD listener report
message from NMAG. At the reception of LEAVE messages for groups
(channels), PMAG MUST terminate forwarding of the specific groups and
update its multicast forwarding database. According to its multicast
forwarding state, it MAY need to issue a group/channel LEAVE to its
upstream link, if no more listeners are present on its downstream
links.
In both modes, PMAG will interpret the departure of the MN as a
multicast LEAVE message of the MN and react according to the
signaling scheme deployed in the access network (i.e., MLD querying,
explicit tracking).
4.2.3. Operations of the New MAG
A MAG receiving a HI message with Multicast Mobility Option for a
currently unattached node follows the predictive fast handover mode
as NMAG. It will decide on those multicast groups/channels it
selects to be forwarded from the PMAG and builds a Multicast
Acknowledgement Option (see Section 5.4) that enumerates only
unwanted groups/channels. This Mobility Option is appended to the
regular fast handover HACK messages, or - in the case of unicast HACK
message being submitted prior to multicast state acknowledgement -
sent in an additional HACK message to the PMAG. Immediately
thereafter, NMAG SHOULD update its MLD listener state by the new
groups/channels obtained from the Multicast Mobility Option. Until
the MN re-attaches, NMAG uses its loopback interface for downstream
and MUST not forward traffic to the potential link of the MN. NMAG
SHOULD issue JOIN messages for those newly selected groups to its
regular multicast upstream interface. As soon as the bidirectional
tunnel with PMAG is established, NMAG additionally joins those groups
/channels on the tunnel interface that it wants to receive forwarded
from PMAG. NMAG MUST send a LEAVE message to the tunnel immediately
after the forwarding of a group/channel becomes unneeded, e.g., after
native multicast traffic arrives or group membership of the MN
terminates.
A MAG experiencing a connection request for an MN without prior
reception of a corresponding Multicast Mobility Option is operating
in the reactive fast handover mode as NMAG. Following the re-
attachment, it immediately issues an MLD General Query to learn about
multicast subscriptions of the newly arrived MN. Using standard
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
multicast operations, NMAG joins the missing groups (channels) on its
regular multicast upstream interface. Concurrently, it selects
groups (channels) for forwarding from PMAG and builds a Multicast
Mobility Option as described in Section 5.3 that contains the MLD
(IGMP) multicast listener state. If not empty, this Mobility Option
is appended to the regular fast handover HI messages with the F flag
set, or - in the case of unicast HI message being submitted prior to
multicast state detection - sent in an additional HI message to the
PMAG. Upon reception of the Multicast Acknowledgement Option and
establishment of the bidirectional tunnel, NMAG additionally joins
those groups/channels on the tunnel interface that it wants to
receive by forwarding from PMAG. When multicast flows arrive, the
NMAG forwards data to the appropriate downlink(s). NMAG MUST send a
LEAVE message to the tunnel immediately after forwarding of a group/
channel becomes obsolete, e.g., after native multicast traffic
arrives or group membership of the MN terminates.
4.2.4. IPv4 Support Considerations
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
multi-protocol multicast support on the network side, IGMPv3 router
functions are required at both MAGs (see Section 5.6 for
compatibility considerations with previous IGMP versions). Context
transfer between MAGs can transparently proceed in HI/HACK message
exchanges by encapsulating IGMP multicast state records within
Multicast Mobility Options (see Section 5.3 and Section 5.4 for
details on message formats).
The deployment of IPv4 multicast support SHOULD be homogeneous across
a PMIP domain, as network services break across handovers, otherwise.
It is worth mentioning the scenarios of a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 access
network, and the use of GRE tunneling as specified in[RFC5845].
Corresponding implications and operations are discussed in the PMIP
Multicast Base Deployment document, see[RFC6224].
5. Message Formats
5.1. Multicast Indicator for Proxy Router Advertisement (PrRtAdv)
An FMIPv6 AR will indicate its multicast support by activating the
M-bit in its Proxy Router Advertisements (PrRtAdv). The message
extension has the following format.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subtype |M| Reserved | Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Figure 6: Multicast Indicator Bit for Proxy Router Advertisement
(PrRtAdv) Message
5.2. Extensions to Existing Mobility Header Messages
The fast handover protocols use a new IPv6 header type called
Mobility Header as defined in [RFC6275]. Mobility headers can carry
variable Mobility Options.
Multicast Listener context of an MN is transferred in fast handover
operations from PAR/PMAG to NAR/NMAG within a new Multicast Mobility
Option, and MUST be acknowledged by a corresponding Acknowledgement
Option. Depending on the specific handover scenario and protocol in
use, the corresponding option is included within the mobility option
list of HI/HAck only (PFMIPv6), or of FBU/FBAck/HI/HAck (FMIPv6).
5.3. New Multicast Mobility Option
This section defines the Multicast Mobility Option. It contains the
current listener state record of the MN obtained from the MLD Report
message, and has the format displayed in Figure 7.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Option-Code | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ MLD (IGMP) Report Payload +
~ ~
~ ~
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Mobility Header Multicast Option
RFC Editor note: IANA is requested to allocate the value XXX and
remove this note prior to publication.
Type: XXX
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The size of this option is 8 octets
including the Type, Option-Code, and Length fields.
Option-Code:
1: IGMPv3 Payload Type
2: MLDv2 Payload Type
3: IGMPv3 Payload Type from IGMPv2 Compatibility Mode
4: MLDv2 Payload Type from MLDv1 Compatibility Mode
Reserved: MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by
the receiver.
MLD (IGMP) Report Payload: this field is composed of the MLD (IGMP)
Report message after stripping its ICMP header. Corresponding
message formats are defined for MLDv2 in [RFC3810], and for IGMPv3 in
[RFC3376].
Figure 8 shows the Report Payload for MLDv2, while the payload format
for IGMPv3 is defined corresponding to the IGMPv3 payload format (see
Section 5.2. of [RFC3810], or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376]) for the
definition of Multicast Address Records).
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |No of Mcast Address Records (M)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | . .
. Multicast Address Record [1] .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Multicast Address Record [2] .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . |
. . .
| . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Multicast Address Record [M] .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: MLDv2 Report Payload
5.4. New Multicast Acknowledgement Option
The Multicast Acknowledgement Option reports the status of the
context transfer and contains the list of state records that could
not be successfully transferred to the next access network. It has
the format displayed in Figure 9.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Option-Code | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ MLD (IGMP) Unsupported Report Payload +
~ ~
~ ~
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Mobility Header Multicast Acknowledgement Option
RFC Editor note: IANA is requested to allocate the value XXX and
remove this note prior to publication.
Type: XXX
Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The size of this option in 8 octets.
The length is 1 when the MLD (IGMP) Unsupported Report Payload field
contains no Mcast Address Record.
Option-Code: 0
Status:
1: Report Payload type unsupported
2: Requested group service unsupported
3: Requested group service administratively prohibited
Reserved: MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by
the receiver.
MLD (IGMP) Unsupported Report Payload: this field is syntactically
identical to the MLD (IGMP) Report Payload field described in
Section 5.3, but is only composed of those multicast address records
that are not supported or prohibited in the new access network. This
field MUST always contain the first header line (reserved field and
No of Mcast Address Records), but MUST NOT contain any Mcast Address
Records, if the status code equals 1.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
Note that group subscriptions to specific sources may be rejected at
the destination network, and thus the composition of multicast
address records may differ from initial requests within an MLD (IGMP)
Report Payload option.
5.5. Length Considerations: Number of Records and Addresses
Mobility Header Messages exchanged in HI/HACK and FBU/FBACK dialogs
impose length restrictions on multicast context records. The maximal
payload length available in FBU/FBACK messages is the PATH-MTU - 40
octets (IPv6 Header) - 6 octets (Mobility Header) - 6 octets (FBU/
FBACK Header). For example, on an Ethernet link with an MTU of 1500
octets, not more than 72 Multicast Address Records of minimal length
(without source states) may be exchanged in one message pair. In
typical handover scenarios, this number reduces further according to
unicast context and Binding Authorization data. A larger number of
MLD Reports that exceed the available payload size MAY be sent within
multiple HI/HACK or FBU/FBACK message pairs. In PFMIPv6, context
information can be fragmented over several HI/HACK messages.
However, a single MLDv2 Report Payload MUST NOT be fragmented.
Hence, for a single Multicast Address Record on an Ethernet link, the
number of source addresses (S,.) is limited to 89.
5.6. MLD (IGMP) Compatibility Requirements
Access routers (MAGs) MUST support MLDv2 (IGMPv3). To enable
multicast service for MLDv1 (IGMPv2) listeners, the routers MUST
follow the interoperability rules defined in [RFC3810] ([RFC3376])
and appropriately set the Multicast Address Compatibility Mode.
When the Multicast Address Compatibility Mode is MLDv1 (IGMPv2), a
router internally translates the following MLDv1 (IGMPv2) messages
for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv2) equivalents and
uses these messages in the context transfer. The current state of
Compatibility Mode is translated into the code of the Multicast
Mobility Option as defined in Section 5.3. A NAR (nMAG) receiving a
Multicast Mobility Option during handover will switch to the lowest
level of MLD (IGMP) Compatibility Mode that it learned from its
previous and new option values. This minimal compatibility agreement
is used to allow for continued operation.
6. Security Considerations
Security vulnerabilities that exceed issues discussed in the base
protocols of this document ([RFC5568], [RFC5949], [RFC3810],
[RFC3376]) are identified as follows.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
Multicast context transfer at predictive handovers implements group
states at remote access routers and may lead to group subscriptions
without further validation of the multicast service requests.
Thereby a NAR (nMAG) is requested to cooperate in potentially complex
multicast re-routing and may receive large volumes of traffic.
Malicious or inadvertent multicast context transfers may result in a
significant burden of route establishment and traffic management onto
the backbone infrastructure and the access router itself. Rapid re-
routing or traffic overload can be mitigated by a rate control at the
AR that restricts the frequency of traffic redirects and the total
number of subscriptions. In addition, the wireless access network
remains protected from multicast data injection until the requesting
MN attaches to the new location.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines new flags and status codes in the HI and HAck
messages as well as two new mobility options. The Type values for
these mobility options are assigned from the same numbering space as
allocated for the other mobility options defined in [RFC6275]. Those
for the flags and status codes are assigned from the corresponding
numbering space defined in [RFC5568], or [RFC5949] and requested to
be created as new tables in the IANA registry (marked with
asterisks). New values for these registries can be allocated by
Standards Action or IESG approval [RFC5226].
8. Acknowledgments
Protocol extensions to support multicast in Fast Mobile IPv6 have
been loosely discussed for several years. Repeated attempts have
been taken to define corresponding protocol extensions. The first
draft [fmcast-mip6] was presented by Suh, Kwon, Suh, and Park in
2004.
This work was stimulated by many fruitful discussions in the MobOpts
research group. We would like to thank all active members for
constructive thoughts and contributions on the subject of multicast
mobility. Comments, discussions and reviewing remarks have been
contributed by (in alphabetical order) Carlos J. Bernardos, Luis M.
Contreras, Shuai Gao, Dirk von Hugo, Georgios Karagian, Marco
Liebsch, Behcet Sarikaya, Stig Venaas and Juan Carlos Zuniga.
9. References
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5568] Koodli, R., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568, July
2009.
[RFC5949] Yokota, H., Chowdhury, K., Koodli, R., Patil, B., and F.
Xia, "Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5949,
September 2010.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[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.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
9.2. Informative References
[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.
[fmcast-mip6]
Suh, K., Kwon, D., Suh, Y., and Y. Park, "Fast Multicast
Protocol for Mobile IPv6 in the fast handovers
environments", draft-suh-mipshop-fmcast-mip6-00 (work in
progress), July 2004.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
[FMIPv6-Analysis]
Schmidt, TC. and M. Waehlisch, "Predictive versus Reactive
- Analysis of Handover Performance and Its Implications on
IPv6 and Multicast Mobility", Telecommunication Systems
Vol 33, No. 1-3, pp. 131-154, November 2005.
[RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, April 2011.
[I-D.ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source]
Schmidt, T., Gao, S., Zhang, H., and M. Waehlisch, "Mobile
Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
Domains", draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 (work in
progress), January 2014.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 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. Change Log
The following changes have been made from draft-ietf-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-02.
1. Design requirements and motoviation section added in response to
WG feedback.
2. Clarifications according to WG feedback.
3. Several editorial improvements.
4. Updated references.
The following changes have been made from draft-ietf-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-01.
1. Several editorial improvements.
2. Updated references.
The following changes have been made from draft-ietf-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-00.
1. Buffering text added from new co-author Dapeng.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
2. Several editorial improvements.
The following changes have been made from draft-schmidt-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-04.
1. Following working group feedback, multicast traffic forwarding is
now a two-sided option between PAR (PMAG) and NAR (NMAG): Either
access router can decide on its contribution to the data plane.
2. Several editorial improvements.
The following changes have been made from draft-schmidt-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-03.
1. References updated.
The following changes have been made from draft-schmidt-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-02.
1. Detailed operations on PFMIPv6 entities completed.
2. Some editorial improvements & clarifications.
3. References updated.
The following changes have been made from draft-schmidt-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-01.
1. First detailed operations on PFMIPv6 added.
2. IPv4 support considerations for PFMIPv6 added.
3. Section on length considerations for multicast context records
corrected.
4. Many editorial improvements & clarifications.
5. References updated.
The following changes have been made from draft-schmidt-multimob-
fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-00.
1. Editorial improvements & clarifications.
2. Section on length considerations for multicast context records
added.
3. Section on MLD/IGMP compatibility aspects added.
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Multicast for FMIPv6/PFMIPv6 February 2014
4. Security section added.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas C. Schmidt (editor)
HAW Hamburg
Dept. Informatik
Berliner Tor 7
Hamburg D-20099
Germany
Email: schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de
Matthias Waehlisch
link-lab & FU Berlin
Hoenower Str. 35
Berlin D-10318
Germany
Email: mw@link-lab.net
Rajeev Koodli
Cisco Systems
30 International Place
Xuanwu District,
Tewksbury MA 01876
USA
Email: rkoodli@cisco.com
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Aberdeen AB24 3UE
UK
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Dapeng Liu
China Mobile
Phone: +86-123-456-7890
Email: liudapeng@chinamobile.com
Schmidt, et al. Expires August 19, 2014 [Page 28]