Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy
draft-ietf-pim-multipath-igmpmldproxy-05
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pim WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hitoshi Asaeda , Luis M. Contreras | ||
| Last updated | 2026-10-21 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-pim-multipath-igmpmldproxy-05
PIM H. Asaeda
Internet-Draft NICT
Intended status: Informational L. Contreras
Expires: 24 April 2027 Telefonica
21 October 2026
Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy
draft-ietf-pim-multipath-igmpmldproxy-05
Abstract
This document specifies the framework to support multipath reception
in Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD) proxy devices. The proposed mechanism allows IGMP/
MLD proxy devices to receive multicast sessions/channels through
different upstream interfaces. It defines static configuration
methods for associating upstream interfaces with channel identifiers
and interface priority values. A mechanism for upstream interface
takeover that enables switching from an inactive to active upstream
interface is also described.
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 https://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 24 April 2027.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://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
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Static Upstream Interface Configuration and Selection
Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Channel-Based Upstream Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Multiple Upstream Interface Selection for Robust Data
Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Upstream Interface Takeover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Candidate Upstream Interface Configuration . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Multicast Channel Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Interface Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Default Upstream Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Updating YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Proof of Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376][RFC5790] for
IPv4 and the Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD)
[RFC3810][RFC5790] for IPv6 are the standard protocols for hosts to
initiate the joining or leaving of multicast sessions. A proxy
device that performs IGMP/MLD-based forwarding (known as IGMP/MLD
proxy) [RFC4605] maintains multicast membership information using
IGMP/MLD protocols on downstream interfaces and sends IGMP/MLD
membership report messages via the upstream interface to upstream
multicast routers when the membership information changes (e.g., by
receiving solicited/unsolicited report messages). The proxy device
forwards the appropriate multicast packets received on its upstream
interface to each downstream interface based on the subscription of
the downstream receiver.
According to the specification of [RFC4605], an IGMP/MLD proxy has _a
single_ upstream interface and one or more downstream interfaces.
Upstream and downstream interfaces on the IGMP/MLD proxy device must
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
be configured manually, and the upstream interface is expected to be
connected to a wider multicast infrastructure. Therefore, IGMP/MLD
proxy devices perform the router portion of the IGMP or MLD protocol
on their downstream interfaces and the host portion of IGMP/MLD on
their upstream interface. They must not perform the router portion
of IGMP/MLD on the upstream interface.
Conversely, there is a scenario in which IGMP/MLD proxy devices
enable multiple upstream interfaces and receive multicast packets
through these interfaces. For example, a proxy device with more than
one interface may want to access different networks, such as the
Internet and local-scope networks, or a proxy device with a wired
link (e.g., Ethernet) and high-speed wireless link (e.g., 5G) may
want to have the capability to connect to the Internet through both
links. These proxy devices receive multicast packets from different
upstream interfaces and forward them to the downstream interface(s).
The applicability of IGMP/MLD proxies with multiple upstream
interfaces in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] is described in
[RFC6224].
This document specifies the framework to support multipath reception
in IGMP/MLD proxy devices and defines the static upstream interface
configuration mechanisms for IGMP/MLD proxies to select one or more
upstream interfaces per multicast channel/session. Unlike the
conventional approach [RFC4605], when a proxy device receives an
IGMP/MLD report message on the downstream interface(s), it examines
the source and multicast addresses in the records of the IGMP/MLD
report message and selects the appropriate upstream interface(s).
The upstream interfaces can be selected by static configurations
based on channel identifiers and interface priority values. Note
that the upstream interface selection by dynamic configurations is
introduced in another document [I-D.contreras-pim-multiif-config] and
out of scope of this document.
In addition, this document defines the method for a proxy device to
select one or more upstream interfaces from the candidate upstream
interfaces per session/channel. In this case, it can receive
duplicate (redundant) packets for the session/channel from different
upstream interfaces simultaneously, resulting in "robust data
reception."
A mechanism for "upstream interface takeover" is also described in
this document; when the selected upstream interface becomes
unavailable or does not receive packets for the corresponding
multicast channel during the configured active interval, one of the
other available candidate upstream interfaces (i.e., backup upstream
interface) takes over the upstream interface if configured.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
In addition, the following terms are used in this document.
* Selected upstream interface (or simply, upstream interface): The
interface of a proxy device in the direction of the root of the
multicast forwarding tree. A proxy device performs the host
portion of IGMP/MLD on its upstream interface. An upstream
interface is selected from a list of candidate upstream
interfaces.
* Default upstream interface: An upstream interface for multicast
sessions/channels for which a proxy device does not select other
upstream interfaces. The default upstream interface is
configurable.
* Downstream interface: An interface that is not in the direction of
the root of the multicast forwarding tree. A proxy device
performs the router portion of IGMP/MLD on its downstream
interfaces.
* Active upstream interface: An upstream interface that has been
receiving packets for specific multicast sessions/channels during
a predefined active interval.
* Inactive upstream interface: An interface that has not received
packets for specific multicast sessions/channels during a
predefined active interval.
* Candidate upstream interface: An interface that potentially
becomes an upstream interface of the proxy device. A list of
candidate upstream interfaces is configured with channel/session
identifiers and/or priority values on an IGMP/MLD proxy device.
* Backup upstream interface: A candidate upstream interface that
remains passive (i.e., not receiving traffic for the corresponding
multicast channel until a failover event occurs). It may be used
where operator policy prioritizes maintaining a backup path to
ensure data transfer rather than active multipath forwarding.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
* Channel/session identifier: A pair consisting of a source address
prefix and a multicast address prefix. Either prefix can be
"null". A null value acts as a wildcard for the corresponding
field. For example, a null source address prefix matches any
source for the specified multicast address prefix (i.e., (*,G)).
For the default upstream interface, both values are set to null so
that the entry matches any multicast session/channel.
* Robust data reception: The behavior in which multiple upstream
interfaces are used in parallel to receive the same multicast
content from them concurrently. It is OPTIONAL for
implementations to support this behavior. If this feature is
disabled or not implemented, a single upstream interface is
selected for each multicast channel.
* Upstream interface takeover: The behavior in which a proxy device
stops using an unavailable or inactive selected upstream interface
for a session/channel and switches to a backup upstream interface.
3. Static Upstream Interface Configuration and Selection Mechanism
3.1. Channel-Based Upstream Selection
An IGMP/MLD proxy device selects one or more upstream interfaces from
the candidate upstream interfaces for each session/channel based on
the configured channel/session identifier. This mechanism is
referred to as "channel-based upstream selection."
3.2. Multiple Upstream Interface Selection for Robust Data Reception
When more than one candidate upstream interface is configured with
identical source and multicast addresses for the "channel/session
identifiers" and with the same "interface priority value" (as
described in Section 4.2), these candidate upstream interfaces act as
upstream interfaces for the corresponding sessions/channels and
receive the same multicast traffic simultaneously.
Receiving the same multicast traffic through multiple upstream
interfaces provides redundant packet reception and may improve the
robustness of data reception. This behavior is similar to the
redundant multicast reception used by Multicast-Only Fast Reroute
(MoFRR) [RFC7431]. Duplicate multicast packets may therefore be
received through the selected upstream interfaces. Duplicate packet
detection and elimination are outside the scope of this document.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
Robust data reception does not guarantee that packets are received
over disjoint paths. The selected upstream interfaces are connected
to different adjacent upstream routers, but the paths from these
routers toward the multicast source may still overlap.
3.3. Upstream Interface Takeover
"Upstream interface takeover" is a function for proxy devices to
realize continuous multicast data reception. A proxy device can
simultaneously use multiple upstream interfaces per session/
channel. If a proxy device detects that a selected upstream interface
is unavailable or inactive, it stops using that interface for the
session/channel and switches to a backup upstream interface. To
enable upstream interface takeover, the backup upstream interface
MUST be configured. The backup upstream interface is selected from
the candidate upstream interfaces that match the same session/
channel. If multiple backup upstream interfaces are configured, the
interface priority value for each backup upstream interface MUST be
configured.
The condition of whether the upstream adjacent router is active or
inactive can be determined by checking the link/interface conditions
on the proxy device or by monitoring the IGMP/MLD Query or PIM
[RFC7761] Hello message reception on the link. Note that there are
cases where PIM is not running on the link or IGMP/MLD Query messages
are not always transmitted by the upstream router (e.g., when the
explicit tracking function [I-D.ietf-pim-explicit-tracking] is
enabled).
An active interval is a period in which the selected upstream
interface on the proxy device remains active. The active interval of
each candidate upstream interface can be configured. Active interval
values vary depending on whether the network operators wish to
trigger via IGMP/MLD or PIM messages. The default active interval
for detecting an inactive upstream interface MAY be approximately
twice the IGMP/MLD General Query interval and PIM Hello interval.
However, defining the optimal timer value for switching from an
inactive upstream interface to an active upstream interface from a
list of candidate upstream interfaces is out of scope of this
document. It SHOULD be possible for operators to change the timer
value according to the network conditions or other factors.
4. Candidate Upstream Interface Configuration
An IGMP/MLD proxy device selects one or more upstream interfaces from
a set of candidate upstream interfaces. The upstream interface
selection approach works with the configurations of "channel/session
identifier" and "interface priority value."
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
4.1. Multicast Channel Record
IGMP/MLD proxy devices can configure the "channel/session identifier"
in the multicast channel record for each candidate upstream
interface.
A channel/session identifier consists of a source address prefix and
a multicast address prefix. Source address prefixes MUST be valid
unicast address prefixes, and multicast address prefixes MUST be
valid multicast address prefixes. A proxy selects an upstream
interface from its candidate upstream interfaces based on the
channel/session identifier configuration.
The default values of these address prefixes are "null." A null
source address prefix represents a wildcard source address prefix,
which indicates any host. A null multicast address prefix represents
a wildcard multicast address prefix, which indicates the entire
multicast address range (i.e., 224.0.0.0/4 for IPv4 or ff00::/8 for
IPv6).
The channel/session identifier configuration comprises the source and
multicast address prefixes. A candidate upstream interface with a
non-null source and multicast address configuration is prioritized
for upstream interface selection. For example, if a proxy device has
two candidate upstream interfaces for the same multicast address
prefix G_p but one of them has a non-null source address prefix S_p
configuration, that candidate upstream interface is selected for the
source and multicast address pair (i.e., (S_p,G_p)). The other
candidate upstream interface is selected for the configured multicast
address prefix, excluding the source address prefix configured by the
prior interface (i.e., (*-S_p,G_p)).
The source address prefix configuration is prioritized over the
multicast address prefix configuration. For example, consider the
case where an IGMP/MLD proxy device has a configuration with the
source address prefix S_p for candidate upstream interface A and the
multicast address prefix G_p for candidate upstream interface B.
When dealing with an IGMP/MLD record whose source address (S) is in
the range of S_p and whose multicast address (G) is in the range of
G_p, the proxy device selects candidate upstream interface A, which
supports the source address prefix, as the upstream interface and
transmits the (S,G) record via interface A.
In summary, in environments where multiple static upstream interface
configurations are defined, the proxy device determines the
applicable upstream interface based on the following precedence
order:
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
* (S,G) association: If a specific source and multicast group pair
is configured, the corresponding upstream interface is used for
delivering traffic matching that pair.
* (S,*) association: If a source address is configured without a
specific group, the corresponding upstream interface is used for
traffic from that source, regardless of group.
* (*,G) association: If a multicast group is configured without a
specific source, the corresponding upstream interface is used for
traffic to that group, regardless of source.
When multiple upstream interfaces are configured with overlapping
address prefixes, the interface with the highest priority value, as
described in Section 4.2, is used. If multiple interfaces share the
same highest priority value, they are used in parallel for redundant
reception as described in Section 3.2.
4.2. Interface Priority
An IGMP/MLD proxy device can configure an "interface priority" value
for each candidate upstream interface. The priority is indicated by
a non-negative integer value and is part of the configuration. A
lower value indicates a lower priority, and the default value is
zero.
The interface priority value is used when no channel/session
identifier is configured for a candidate upstream interface or when
multiple candidate upstream interfaces are configured with the same
channel/session identifier. In these cases, the candidate upstream
interface with the highest priority is selected as the upstream
interface. As stated in Section 3.2, if multiple candidate upstream
interfaces have the same priority value, they act as upstream
interfaces for the configured channel/session identifier in parallel
and may receive duplicate packets.
4.3. Default Upstream Interface
A proxy device MAY be configured with a default upstream interface.
The default upstream interface is selected for a multicast session/
channel when no multicast channel record is configured for that
session/channel. The source and multicast address prefixes of the
default upstream interface are both set to null so that they match
any session/channel.
When a multicast channel record is configured for a session/channel,
the proxy device selects an upstream interface from the candidate
upstream interfaces specified in that record. If the selected
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
upstream interface becomes unavailable, another candidate upstream
interface is selected according to the upstream interface takeover
procedure described in Section 3.3. The default upstream interface
is not used unless it is explicitly included as a candidate upstream
interface in the record. If no candidate upstream interface can be
selected, the proxy device does not send the corresponding IGMP/MLD
Report through an upstream interface.
An implementation SHOULD validate multicast channel records when the
configuration is applied and reject invalid records. An invalid
record MUST NOT be used for upstream interface selection. An invalid
multicast channel record does not cause the default upstream
interface to be selected.
5. Updating YANG Model
Regarding the IGMP/MLD YANG model proposed in [RFC9166], there is a
description of interfaces for IGMP (similarly for MLD). However, it
is necessary to update the proposed YANG model to include all
information about the upstream interfaces described in this document
and to consider actions related to the dynamic upstream interface
configuration. [I-D.zcl-pim-multiif-igmp-mld-proxy-yang] is a
potential data model proposal used for this purpose.
6. Security Considerations
This document neither provides new functions nor modifies the
standard functions defined in [RFC3376][RFC3810][RFC5790]; therefore,
no additional security considerations are provided for these
protocols. Conversely, it is possible to encounter denial-of-service
(DoS) attacks to stop upstream interface takeover if attackers
illegally send IGMP/MLD Query or PIM Hello messages on a LAN within a
shorter period (i.e., before the expiration of the active upstream
interface interval). To bypass such threats, it is RECOMMENDED to
capture the source addresses of the IGMP/MLD Query or PIM Hello
message senders and examine whether these addresses correspond to the
correct adjacent upstream routers.
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not define any new IANA registries.
8. Acknowledgements
TBD.
9. References
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.contreras-pim-multiif-config]
Contreras, L. M. and H. Asaeda, "Signaling-based
configuration for supporting multiple upstream interfaces
in IGMP/MLD proxies", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-contreras-pim-multiif-config-03, 7 July 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-
pim-multiif-config-03>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-explicit-tracking]
Asaeda, H., "IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking
Function for Multicast Routers", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-13, 1
November 2015, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-13>.
[I-D.zcl-pim-multiif-igmp-mld-proxy-yang]
Zhao, H., Contreras, L. M., Liu, X., and H. Asaeda, "YANG
Data Model for supporting multipath IGMP/MLD proxies",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zcl-pim-multiif-
igmp-mld-proxy-yang-04, 15 October 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zcl-pim-
multiif-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-04>.
[ICIN.xml] Fernandez, D., Contreras, L. M., Moyano, R. F., Garcia,
S., and IEEE, "NFV/SDN Based Multiple Upstream Interfaces
Multicast Proxy Service", 2021 24th Conference on
Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops
(ICIN), pp. 159-163, DOI 10.1109/icin51074.2021.9385529, 1
March 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/icin51074.2021.9385529>.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.
[RFC6224] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and S. Krishnan, "Base
Deployment for Multicast Listener Support in Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 6224, DOI 10.17487/RFC6224,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6224>.
[RFC7431] Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7431, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7431>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC9166] Zhao, H., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Peter, A., and M. Sivakumar,
"A YANG Data Model for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping",
RFC 9166, DOI 10.17487/RFC9166, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9166>.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multipath Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy October 2026
Appendix A. Proof of Concept
The support of multiple upstream interfaces for IGMP/MLD proxies was
experimentally implemented following a controller-based configuration
approach. The implementation was based on Linux using a software-
defined networking application running over a Ryu controller. This
application uses OpenFlow from the controller to control an Open
vSwitch, which relays downstream multicast data flows and upstream
IGMP/MLD control traffic. The proof of concept is comprehensively
described in [ICIN.xml].
Authors' Addresses
Hitoshi Asaeda
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei,
Tokyo 184-8795
Japan
Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 24 April 2027 [Page 12]