AMRoute: Adhoc Multicast Routing Protocol
draft-talpade-manet-amroute-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(manet WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Anthony McAuley , Rajesh R. Talpade , Ethendranath Bommaiah | ||
| Last updated | 2023-06-09 (Latest revision 1998-08-06) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Dead WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The Adhoc Multicast Routing Protocol (AMRoute) allows for robust IP Multicast in mobile adhoc networks by exploiting user-multicast trees and dynamic cores. It creates a bidirectional shared-tree for data distribution using only the group senders and receivers as tree nodes. Unicast tunnels are used as the tree links to connect neighbors on the 'user-multicast tree.' Thus, AMRoute does not need to be supported by network nodes that are not interested/capable of multicast, and cost is incurred only by group senders and receivers. AMRoute makes certain nodes 'core nodes' to initiate the signaling component of AMRoute, such as detection of group members and tree setup. Core nodes differ significantly from those in CBT and PIM-SM, since they are not a central point for data distribution and can move dynamically among member nodes. Since AMRoute is not dependent on any specific unicast routing protocol, it can operate seamlessly over separate domains with different unicast protocols.
Authors
Anthony McAuley
Rajesh R. Talpade
Ethendranath Bommaiah
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)