1 / 12

PMIPv6 Extension for Multicast Support at 82nd IETF in Taipei, Taiwan

This document outlines the PMIPv6 Extension for multicast support, introduced at the 82nd IETF meeting in November 2011, Taipei. It addresses the challenges related to address tunnel convergence, where both the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) and Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) act as PIM-SM routers, facilitating both ASM and SSM. The extension supports seamless handovers, multicast channel management, and local routing. Key changes from previous drafts include the simplification of the scenario and the introduction of new message formats for multicast updates.

thi
Download Presentation

PMIPv6 Extension for Multicast Support at 82nd IETF in Taipei, Taiwan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 82nd IETF, November 2011, Taipei, Taiwan PMIPv6 Extension for Multicastdraft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07 Hitoshi Asaeda Pierrick Seite Jinwei Xia

  2. Background • Address tunnel convergence problem • Both LMA and MAG act as PIM-SM routers • Support both ASM and SSM • Incoming IF on LMA/MAG is selected by an RPF lookup algorithm given by PIM • Support local/direct routing • Source mobility friendly • But out of scope of this document • Mobility support (i.e. seamless handover) • Scenario 1: With Policy Profile • When MN’s subscribing channel list is always maintained • Scenario 2: With multicast extended PBU/PBA • Use DeReg PBU and PBA having multicast channel information (PBU-M/PBA-M) 82nd IETF, November 2011

  3. Changes from -06 • Simplify the scenario • Remove M-Tunnel • Usually use bi-directional tunnel • Assume to copy unicast routing table (e.g. RIB) to MRIB • Editorial changes 82nd IETF, November 2011

  4. Basic Data Flow – Example • MAG and LMA act as PIM-SM routers • Upstream IF for (S1,G1) is LMA-MAG Bidirectional Tunnel IF • Upstream IF for (S2,G2) is MAG’s physical IF (e.g. direct routing) MN1 MN2 MAG LMA MLD Report (S1,G1) Bidir Tunnel PIM join PIM join (S1,G1) MLD Report (S2,G2) PIM join (S1,G1) (S2,G2) 82nd IETF, November 2011

  5. Handover Example 1 Fixed Internet Src LMA1 LMA2 PIM-SM enable router MR Src PMIPv6-Domain Bidir Tunnel PIM Join pMAG nMAG PBU-M (DeReg) /PBA-M Src MN MN PBU/PBA MN MN 82nd IETF, November 2011

  6. Handover Example 2 Fixed Internet Src LMA1 LMA2 PIM-SM enable router MR Src PMIPv6-Domain Bidir Tunnel PIM Join pMAG nMAG PBU-M (DeReg) /PBA-M Src MN MN PBU/PBA MN MN 82nd IETF, November 2011

  7. Handover Scenario– Home Subscription MN p-MAG LMA n-MAG | | | | |----- MLD Report ---->| | | | |==Bidir Tunnel(PIM join)==>| | | | |---> PIM join | |<---------------------|<=Bidir Tunnel(Multi.data)=| | | | | | Detach | | | | MN detachment event | | | |------- DeReg PBU-M ------>| | | | (Acquire multicast channel | | | information for MN-ID) | | | Accept PBU | | |<---------- PBA -----------| | Attach | | | | | | MN attachment event (Acquire MN-ID) |------------------------------------ RS ------------------------------------->| | | |--------- PBU -----------| | | |---------- PBA-M --------->| | | | (Acquire multicast channel | | | information for MN-ID) | | |<==Bidir Tunnel(PIM join)==| |<----------------------------------- RA --------------------------------------| | | |=Bidir Tunnel(Multi.data)=>| |<--------------------------------- Multicast data ----------------------------| | | | | 82nd IETF, November 2011

  8. Handover Scenario– Remote Subscription (or Direct Routing) MN p-MAG LMA n-MAG | | | | |----- MLD Report ---->| | | | |---> PIM join | | |<-- Multicast data ---| | | | | | | Detach | | | | MN detachment event | | | |------- DeReg PBU-M ------>| | | | (Acquire multicast channel | | | information for MN-ID) | | | Accept PBU | | |<---------- PBA -----------| | Attach | | | | | | MN attachment event (Acquire MN-ID) |------------------------------------ RS ------------------------------------->| | | |--------- PBU -----------| | | |---------- PBA-M --------->| | | | (Acquire multicast channel | | | information for MN-ID) | | | | |---> PIM join |<----------------------------------- RA --------------------------------------| |<----------------------------------- Multicast data --------------------------| | | | | 82nd IETF, November 2011

  9. Proxy Binding Update with Multicast Channel Information (PBU-M) • Extension for PMIPv6 [RFC5213] • New “multicast subscription flag (C)” 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence # | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |A|H|L|K|M|R|P|C| Reserved | Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Mobility options . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 82nd IETF, November 2011

  10. Proxy Binding Acknowledgement with Multicast Channel Information (PBA-M) • Extension for PMIPv6 [RFC5213] • New “multicast subscription flag (C)” 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Status |K|R|P|C|Reserve| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence # | Lifetime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Mobility options . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 82nd IETF, November 2011

  11. Mobility Options in PBU-M/PBA-M • The format of the Mobility options field uses the TLV format defined in [RFC3775] where the field contains Multicast Address Record with the same definitions in [RFC3810]. 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 = TBD | Length |Nr of Mcast Address Records (M)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Multicast Address Record [1] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . 82nd IETF, November 2011

  12. Conclusion • This draft describes PMIPv6 with PIM-SM • Address tunnel convergence problem • Support mobility • WG item? 82nd IETF, November 2011

More Related