[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04                                                
MULTIMOB Group                                                 H. Asaeda
Internet-Draft                                           Keio University
Expires: January 15, 2009                                   T. C. Schmidt
                                                             HAW Hamburg
                                                           July 14, 2008


          IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobile Hosts and Routers
         draft-asaeda-multimob-igmp-mld-mobility-extensions-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2009.

















Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


Abstract

   This document describes IGMP and MLD protocol extensions for mobile
   hosts and routers.  IGMP and MLD are necessary protocols for hosts to
   request join or leave multicast sessions.  While the regular IGMP and
   MLD protocols support communication between mobile hosts and routers
   over wireless networks, this document discusses the conditions how
   mobile hosts and routers use IGMP and MLD in their communication more
   effectively.  Aside from a modified protocol semantic, an optional
   "Listener Hold" function for the IGMP and MLD protocol is introduced,
   which requires an extended signaling.








































Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


Conventions used in this document

   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 [1].


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Tracking of Membership Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  IGMP/MLD Query Coordination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.1.  Unicasting IGMP/MLD General Query  . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.2.  Multicasting IGMP/MLD Group-Specific Query . . . . . .  8
       2.2.3.  Values in IGMP/MLD Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.3.  IGMP/MLD Querier Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.1.  IGMP/MLD Hold and Release Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.1.1.  Action of Mobile Host and Router for IGMP/MLD Hold . . 11
       3.1.2.  Action of Mobile Host and Router for IGMP/MLD
               Release  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.1.3.  IGMP/MLD Hold Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.1.4.  IGMP/MLD Hold Timer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       3.1.5.  Interoperability of IGMP/MLD Hold and Release  . . . . 15
     3.2.  Lightweight-IGMP/MLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.1.  Host-Side Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.2.  Router-Side Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24














Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


1.  Introduction

   The Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [2] for IPv4 and the
   Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD) [3] for IPv6 are the
   standard protocols for hosts to initiate joining or leaving multicast
   sessions.  These protocols must be also supported by the upstream
   multicast routers that serve multicast member hosts or IGMP/MLD proxy
   [7] on their downstream interfaces.  Conceptually, IGMP and MLD work
   on wireless networks.  However, wireless access technologies operate
   on a shared medium with limited frequency and bandwidth.  In many
   wireless regimes, it is desirable to minimize multicast-related
   signaling to preserve the limited resources of battery powered mobile
   devices and the constrained transmission capacities of the networks
   (e.g., [12]).  Additionally, a mobile host may cause initiation and
   termination of a multicast service in the new or the previous
   network.  Slow multicast service activation following a join may
   degrade reception quality.  Slow service termination triggered by
   IGMP/MLD querying or by a rapid departure of the mobile host without
   leaving the group in the previous network may waste network
   resources.

   To create feasible condition for mobile hosts and routers
   communicating IGMP/MLD, it is required to "ease processing cost or
   battery power consumption by eliminating transmission of a large
   number of IGMP/MLD messages via flooding" and "realize fast state
   convergence by successive monitoring whether downstream members exist
   or not".  One possible approach to support these requirements is
   explicit tracking.  Upstream router traces all downstream members,
   thereby limiting the number of solicited membership reports (by
   periodical IGMP/MLD Query).  The number of transmitted IGMP/MLD
   messages is effectively reduced, and the upstream router can
   immediately update the membership information and proceed the fast
   leave.

   The explicit tracking function is supported by IGMPv3 [2] and MLDv2
   [3].  In the previous version protocols, IGMPv1 [4], IGMPv2 [5], and
   MLDv1 [6], a host would cancel sending a pending membership reports
   requested by IGMP/MLD Query if a similar report was observed from
   another member on the network.  This specification effectively
   reduced a possibility of network congestion or message flooding, but
   precluded the function for an upstream router to track membership
   status.  On the other hand, in IGMPv3 and MLDv2, the membership
   report suppression mechanism has been removed, and therefore all
   downstream member hosts must send their membership reports to an
   upstream router and the router can keep track of membership status.

   If the report suppression mechanism is removed from the host-side
   protocols, the upstream router supporting IGMPv3/MLDv2 receives all



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   membership reports from the downstream hosts.  One may deduce that
   the router does not need to periodically send IGMPv3/MLDv2 Query
   messages to trace membership status.  However, IGMPv3/MLDv2 capable
   routers usually configure to send periodical IGMP/MLD Query messages
   to seek membership information to the downstream hosts, and disable
   the function that keeps track of membership status.  One of the
   reasons is that IGMP/MLD message is non-reliable and may be lost in
   the transmission, and therefore the router would need to confirm the
   membership by sending query messages.  The other reason is that, for
   keeping track of membership status, the router needs additional
   processing cost and a possibly large size of the memory to record all
   member information.  The requirement to keep the compatibility mode
   with older version IGMP/MLD is also the reason, because the router
   needs to support the downstream hosts that are not upgraded to the
   latest versions of IGMP/MLD and run the report suppression mechanism.

   IGMPv3 and MLDv2 provide the ability for hosts to report source-
   specific subscriptions.  With IGMPv3/MLDv2, a mobile host can specify
   a channel of interest, using multicast group and source addresses
   with INCLUDE filter mode in its join request.  Upon reception, the
   upstream router establishes the shortest path tree toward the source
   without coordinating a shared tree.  This function is called the
   source filtering function and required to support Source-Specific
   Multicast (SSM) [8].

   IGMPv3 and MLDv2 support another operation with EXCLUDE filter mode.
   When a mobile host specifies multicast and source addresses with
   EXCLUDE filter mode in the join request, an upstream router forwards
   the multicast packets sent from all sources *except* the specified
   sources.  In fact, this operation gives the complexity in the host-
   side procedure.  If any application running on a host requests an
   EXCLUDE filter mode operation, the host sets the interface state to
   EXCLUDE mode for the requested multicast address, and the source
   address list of the interface record is the intersection of the
   source address lists requested by all applications in EXCLUDE mode,
   minus the source addresses that appear in any application in INCLUDE
   mode.  The state transition that maintains the interface record is
   complex, and the implementation cost will be relatively high for
   mobile hosts.

   Furthermore, specifying non-interesting source addresses with EXCLUDE
   filter mode reduces the advantage of scalable routing tree
   coordination produced by SSM.  An upstream router needs to maintain a
   shared tree (e.g., RPT in PIM-SM) whenever the router receives join
   request with EXCLUDE filter mode from the downstream hosts.  This
   increases the tree maintenance cost to the multicast routers on the
   routing paths.  While the mobile multicast communication does not
   prohibit a traditional (*,G) join request (which is a join request



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   with EXCLUDE filter mode without specifying any source address), all
   other join requests with EXCLUDE filter mode should be eliminated
   from the mobile multicast communication.

   This document describes the IGMP and MLD protocol extensions for
   mobile hosts and routers, and discusses the conditions how mobile
   hosts and routers use IGMP and MLD in their communication over
   wireless networks effectively.  The selective solutions that provide
   tangible benefits to the mobile hosts and routers are given by
   "keeping track of membership status by eliminating a report
   suppression mechanism", "varying IGMP/MLD Query types and values to
   tune the number of responses", and "using a source filtering
   mechanism in a lightweight manner".  The proposed solutions do not
   require changing the IGMP and MLD protocols.  This condition is
   advantageous to the deployment.




































Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


2.  Configurations

2.1.  Tracking of Membership Status

   Mobile hosts use IGMP and MLD to request to join or leave multicast
   sessions.  When the upstream routers receive the IGMP/MLD reports,
   they recognize the membership status on the LAN.  To update the
   membership status, the routers send IGMP/MLD Query messages
   periodically as a soft-state approach does, and the member hosts
   reply IGMP/MLD report messages upon reception.

   IGMP/MLD Query is therefore necessary to obtain the up-to-date
   membership information, but a large number of the reply messages sent
   from all member hosts may cause network congestion or consume network
   bandwidth.  To escape from the trouble, a membership report
   suppression mechanism was proposed in the traditional IGMP and MLD
   [4][5][6].  By the report suppression mechanism, a host would cancel
   sending a pending membership reports requested by IGMP/MLD Query if a
   similar report was observed from another member on the network.
   However, the report suppression mechanism precluded the function for
   an upstream router to track membership status.  In IGMPv3 and MLDv2,
   it is hence decided that the membership report suppression mechanism
   has been removed, and all downstream member hosts must send their
   membership reports to an upstream router.

   By eliminating membership report suppression, an IGMPv3 or MLDv2
   capable upstream router could trace all downstream members and track
   per-host membership status on the interface.  This reduces the number
   of solicited membership reports by periodical IGMP/MLD Query, and
   finally the total number of transmitted IGMP/MLD messages can be
   drastically reduced.  This is beneficial especially to mobile hosts
   that do not have enough battery power, since flooding IGMP/MLD
   messages on a LAN makes all multicast members give significant
   attention and induces power consumption to the member hosts.  This
   also allows the upstream router to proceed fast leaves, because the
   router can immediately converge and update the membership
   information, ideally.

2.2.  IGMP/MLD Query Coordination

2.2.1.  Unicasting IGMP/MLD General Query

   IGMP and MLD are asymmetric and non-reliable protocols; multicast
   routers still need solicited membership reports by periodical IGMP/
   MLD Query, in order to be robust in front of host or link failures
   and packet loss.  Moreover, it happens that mobile hosts may turn off
   or move from the wireless network to other wireless network managed
   by the different router without any notification (e.g., leave



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   request).  Therefore, even though multicast routers keep track of the
   interests of downstream member hosts attached on the same LAN, IGMP/
   MLD Query must be sent periodically.

   However, periodical message flooding using the all-hosts multicast
   address (i.e. 224.0.0.1 or ff02::1) as its IP destination address
   gives the unwilling situation to the mobile hosts.  When the mobile
   hosts are operating in dormant mode and not communicating with
   others, they should not be woken up by IGMP/MLD General Query and
   keep sleeping for saving the battery power.  In this case, only the
   hosts that are receiving multicast contents should make the response
   to the router.

   IGMPv3 and MLDv2 specifications [2][3] say that a host MUST accept
   and procss any Query whose IP Destination Address field contains any
   of the addresses (unicast or multicast) assigned to the interface on
   which the Query arrives.  According to the scenario, a router may
   want to unicast the message to tracked member hosts in the [Unicast
   Query Interval], especially when a multicast router has a small
   number of mobile hosts that are listening different multicast
   sessions.  In this situation, the router multicasts IGMP/MLD General
   Query with longer [Query Interval] (described in Section 2.2.3).

   [TODO: Define [Unicast Query Interval] value.  The value could be
   same of the default [Query Interval]?]

2.2.2.  Multicasting IGMP/MLD Group-Specific Query

   In the standard protocols [2][3], an IGMP/MLD Group-Specific Query is
   sent to verify there are no hosts that desire reception of the
   specified group or to rebuild the desired reception state for a
   particular group.  The Group-Specific Query is sent when a router
   receives State-Change Records indicating a host is leaving a group,
   and never in response to Current-State Records.

   In a dormant mode operation, a Group-Specific Query can be used to
   build and refresh the group membership state of hosts on attached
   networks.  When more than one mobile host join the multicast contents
   whose multicast address is same, a Group-Specific Query can be sent
   to maintain the group membership state of mobile hosts on attached
   networks.  Since a Group-Specific Query specifies the corresponding
   multicast address (not the all-hosts multicast address) as its IP
   destination address, dormant mode hosts that do not join any
   multicast session are not woken up by these specific Queries and only
   active group member hosts that have been receiving multicast contents
   would reply IGMP/MLD reports.

   However, sending many Group-Specific Queries for all corresponding



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   groups may increase the total number of transmitted IGMP/MLD
   messages.  [TODO: Therefore, it is necessary to know the condition in
   which a Group-Specific Query is used for maintaining the group
   membership state of all hosts on a link, instead of a General Query.]

   The [Multicast Group-Query Interval] is the interval between Group-
   Specific Queries sent by the querier, i.e., the router that sends the
   Group-Specific Query.  [TODO: Define [Multicast Group-Query
   Interval].  We currently think this value is same of the default
   [Query Interval] value the regular IGMP and MLD define [2][3].]

2.2.3.  Values in IGMP/MLD Query

   A multicast router operating in dormant mode keeps track of the
   membership status and checks the membership status by transmitting
   unicast IGMP/MLD General Query or multicast IGMP/MLD Group-Specific
   Query.  Cooperating with these scenarios, the message interval
   between IGMP/MLD General Queries is set to longer than the default
   [Query Interval] value.

   The Query Interval is the interval between General Queries sent by
   the querier, and the default value is 125 seconds [2][3].  By varying
   the [Query Interval], multicast routers can tune the number of IGMP
   messages on the network; larger values cause IGMP Queries to be sent
   less often.

   [TODO: We will provide the appropriate [Query Interval] value that
   would fit in the mobile communication environment based on some
   experimental results.  In our current sense, this value should be
   larger than the default value the regular IGMP and MLD define.]

   The Query Response Interval is the Max Response Time (or Max Response
   Delay) used to calculate the Max Resp Code inserted into the periodic
   General Queries, and the default value is 10 seconds [2][3].  By
   varying the [Query Response Interval], multicast routers can tune the
   burstiness of IGMP messages on the network; larger values make the
   traffic less bursty, as host responses are spread out over a larger
   interval.

   [TODO: We will provide the appropriate [Query Response Interval]
   value that would fit in the mobile communication environment based on
   some experimental results.  In our current sense, this value should
   be less than the default value the regular IGMP and MLD define,
   because, while the larger Query Interval does not reduce the number
   of transmitted IGMP/MLD messages, it may cause slow leave latency.]

   Mobile hosts may receive a variety of Queries on different interfaces
   and of different kinds (e.g., General Queries, Group-Specific



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   Queries, and Group-and-Source-Specific Queries), each of which may
   require its own delayed response.

   [TODO: The timer management for each queries may or should be
   independent.  E.g. the timer value for General Query should be longer
   than the one of other queries.  We will investigate this issue.]

   To cover the possibility of unsolicited reports being missed by
   multicast routers, unsolicited reports are retransmitted [Robustness
   Variable] - 1 more times, at intervals chosen at random from the
   defined range [2][3].  The QRV (Querier's Robustness Variable) field
   in IGMP/MLD Query contains the [Robustness Variable] value used by
   the querier.  Routers adopt the QRV value from the most recently
   received Query as their own [Robustness Variable] value, whose range
   should be set between "1" to "7".  While the default [Robustness
   Variable] value defined in IGMPv3 [2] and MLDv2 [3] is "2", the
   [Robustness Variable] value announced by the querier must not be "0"
   and should not be "1".

   [TODO: We will propose the robustness values that would be adjusted
   according to the number of receivers.  In our current sense, this
   value should not be bigger than "2" especially when the [Query
   Response Interval] is set to less than its default value.]

2.3.  IGMP/MLD Querier Selection

   [TODO: Is there any condition or assumption in which multiple
   multicast routers exist in a single wireless link?  If there is the
   case, do we need to consider IGMP/MLD querier selection mechanism and
   the corresponding timer values or intervals?  The Querier's Query
   Interval Code (QQIC) field specifies the [Query Interval] used by the
   querier may be tuned.  The actual interval, called the Querier's
   Query Interval (QQI), is derived from QQIC.  Multicast routers that
   are not the current querier adopt the QQI value from the most
   recently received Query as their own [Query Interval] value.]
















Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


3.  Protocol Extensions

3.1.  IGMP/MLD Hold and Release Operations

   A mobile host sends a join/leave request for particular multicast
   session to its upstream router (i.e., a proxy router or an adjacent
   router), and the router will maintain IGMP/MLD state of the host and
   serve multicast data to the host.  According to a fast handover
   scenario (e.g., using FMIPv6 [10]), a mobile host wants to accelerate
   multicast service termination in the previous network before handoff
   and immediately rejoin the session after the movement.  As the
   router's behavior, when the router remains part of the multicast
   delivery tree, it keeps the session active without leaving from the
   session, while the data transmission is paused until the host
   completes the movement and resumed after the movement.

   This document describes an IGMP/MLD Hold operation that enables to
   keep the membership state for fast packet forwarding, and an IGMP/MLD
   Release operation that ressumes forwarding the multicast session
   after the host movement.  Originally, an idea of MLD Hold was
   proposed in [13].

   Note that discussing the procedure of context transfer (CT) for each
   mobility protocol (e.g., FMIPv6, PMIPv6 [11]) and the message format
   for CT will be defined in other documents.  And also, discussing how
   a mobile host or a router detects the movement and triggers to send
   an IGMP/MLD Hold message is depend on the mobility protocol, and
   hence out of scope of this document.

3.1.1.  Action of Mobile Host and Router for IGMP/MLD Hold

   An IGMP/MLD Hold operation is used to notify an upstream multicast
   router (e.g., HA in case of bidirectional tunneling, adjacent router
   in case of remote subscription) to stop forwarding data of the
   specified multicast sessions if there is no member joining the same
   sessions, but maintain the multicast membership on the router's
   interface the message was received.

   When a mobile host starts moving from a network to a new network, the
   host or the gateway that detects the movement sends an IGMP/MLD Hold
   message (mentioned in Section 3.1.3) to its upstream router to make a
   fast handover for the specified multicast sessions.

   When the multicast router receives an IGMP/MLD Hold message from a
   mobile host, it records the host's address and specified group and
   source address records and filter-mode, and stops the corresponding
   group or source timer until the IGMP/MLD Hold Timer (described in
   Section 3.1.4) is expired.  The router does not send any Group-



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   Specific or Group-and-Source Specific Query upon reception of an
   IGMP/MLD Hold message.

   After the router recognizes the IGMP/MLD Hold message, the router
   decides whether it stops forwarding the data or not.  The decision is
   dependent on whether the router has been keeping track of membership
   status.  If the router has been tracking all the members, it can
   recognize whether the message sender host is the last member joining
   the notified session on the interface or not.  If the router has not
   been tracking, the router waits for receiving the next Current-State
   Report and recognizes whether the host is the last member joining the
   notified session on the interface or not.  And if the message sender
   host is the last member, the router stops forwarding data by
   disabling the outgoing interface for that session, whereas it keeps
   the host's membership state.  If the host is not the last member of
   the session, the router does not stop forwarding the data even with
   reception of this message.

3.1.2.  Action of Mobile Host and Router for IGMP/MLD Release

   An IGMP/MLD Release operation is used to restart forwarding data of
   the specified multicast sessions that are kept with the membership
   state at a router, or used to cancel the hold request previously
   notified by an IGMP/MLD Hold message.

   When a mobile host moves to a new network, the host or the gateway
   that detects the movement operates IGMP/MLD Release by sending a
   standard IGMP/MLD Current-State Report message as mentioned in
   Section 3.1.3) to its upstream router to release the hold request
   previously sent.

   When a multicast router receives an IGMP/MLD Current-State Report
   message, the router examines the message sender and an IGMP/MLD Hold
   Timer (Section 3.1.4).  If the router has tracked the host's
   membership status, it compares the holding Multicast Address Records
   and notified Multicast Address Records specified in the IGMP/MLD
   Current-State Report message.  Regarding the corresponding Multicast
   Address Records, the router will delete the host's membership state
   if it has, and restart the given group or source timer and forwarding
   the data again if the IGMP/MLD Hold Timer is not expired.

   If either a multicast router has not tracked the corresponding
   membership status given by the host that sent the IGMP/MLD Current-
   State Report message, or if the IGMP/MLD Hold Timer has expired, then
   the router does not take any action.

   If a router that did not recognize an IGMP/MLD Hold message (e.g.,
   due to packet loss or some troubles in its transmission) receives an



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   IGMP/MLD Current-State Report message, it will accept the message as
   a regular Current-State Report IGMP/MLD message as specified in
   Section 3.1.5.

3.1.3.  IGMP/MLD Hold Message Format

   The following figure is the Report message format defined in IGMPv3
   [2] and MLDv2 [3].  Type field is either IGMP Version 3 Membership
   Report (0x22) or Version 2 Multicast Listener Report (decimal 143);
   it is not necessary to change IGMP/MLD Report message format to
   support IGMP/MLD Hold messages.

      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     |    Reserved   |           Checksum            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           Reserved            |Nr of Mcast Address Records (M)|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .               Multicast Address Record [1]                    .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                               .                               .
     .                               .                               .
     .                               .                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .               Multicast Address Record [M]                    .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Multicast Address Record shown in the following figure defines
   new Record Types that express an IGMP/MLD Hold message.  For an IGMP/
   MLD Release operation, the standard IGMP/MLD Current-State Report
   message is used.











Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Record Type  |  Aux Data Len |     Number of Sources (N)     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                       Multicast Address                       .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                       Source Address [1]                      .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-                                                             -+
     .                               .                               .
     .                               .                               .
     .                               .                               .
     +-                                                             -+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                       Source Address [N]                      .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                         Auxiliary Data                        .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Value  Name and Meaning
   -----  ----------------

   7      HOLD_INCLUDE - indicates that the interface has a filter mode
          of INCLUDE for the specified multicast address.  The Source
          Address [i] fields in this Multicast Address Record contain
          the interface's source list for the specified multicast
          address.  A HOLD_INCLUDE Record is never sent with an empty
          source list.

   8      HOLD_EXCLUDE - indicates that the interface has a filter mode
          of EXCLUDE for the specified multicast address.  The Source
          Address [i] fields in this Multicast Address Record contain
          the interface's source list for the specified multicast
          address, if it is non-empty.  When a mobile host works with



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


          LW-IGMPv3/LW-MLDv2 (Section 3.2), the Multicast Address Record
          does not contain the Source Address [i] field with
          HOLD_EXCLUDE type value.

3.1.4.  IGMP/MLD Hold Timer

   A router upon receiving an IGMP/MLD Hold message will identify the
   corresponding multicast sessions for which the message was received,
   and once it accepts the request will wait for IGMP/MLD Hold Timer
   period for the sessions for allowing the router on the new link to
   resume the sessions.  However, if it does not receive any IGMP/MLD
   Current-State Record message for an IGMP/MLD Release operation within
   that given amount of time, it will delete the hold membership state
   given by the IGMP/MLD Hold message and proceed as it receives IGMP
   Leave or MLD Done request.

   [TODO: We will provide the appropriate [IGMP/MLD Hold Timer] value
   that would fit in the mobile communication environment based on some
   experimental results.  Does it depend on mobile protocols?]

3.1.5.  Interoperability of IGMP/MLD Hold and Release

   If a multicast router does not support an IGMP/MLD Hold operation, it
   will ignore the IGMP/MLD Hold message.  In this case, an IGMP/MLD
   Current-State Report message sent by a mobile host that previously
   requested an IGMP/MLD Hold operation to stop forwarding data is dealt
   with as a new join request for the specified multicast sessions (when
   the corresponding group or source timer is expired) or simply updates
   the corresponding group and/or source timer (when these timers are
   not expired and the membership status has been still active).

3.2.  Lightweight-IGMP/MLD

   IGMPv3 and MLDv2 enable all member hosts to send membership reports
   to the upstream routers.  Not only this function, IGMPv3 and MLDv2
   support a source filtering function.  An IGMPv3 or MLDv2 capable host
   can tell its upstream router which group it would like to join by
   specifying which sources it does (or does not) intend to receive
   multicast traffic from.  IGMPv3 and MLDv2 add the capability for a
   multicast router to also learn which sources are (and are not) of
   interest to neighboring hosts, for packets sent to any particular
   multicast address.  This source filtering function is required to
   invoke Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) [8].

   IGMPv3 and MLDv2 introduce antithetic filter modes, INCLUDE and
   EXCLUDE filter modes, to expand the source filtering function.  If a
   host wants to receive from specific sources, it sends an IGMPv3 or
   MLDv2 report with the filter mode set to INCLUDE.  If the host does



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


   not want to receive from some sources, it sends a report with the
   filter mode set to EXCLUDE.  A source list for the given sources
   shall be included in the report message.  INCLUDE and EXCLUDE filter
   modes are also defined in a multicast router to process the IGMPv3 or
   MLDv2 reports.  When a multicast router receives the report messages
   from its downstream hosts, it forwards the corresponding multicast
   traffic by managing requested group and source addresses.

   However, practical applications do not use EXCLUDE mode to block
   sources very often, because a user or application usually wants to
   specify desired source addresses, not undesired source addresses.  In
   addition, this scheme leads an implementation cost to mobile hosts
   and complex procedures to maintain coexisting situation of the
   interesting source address lists with INCLUDE filter mode or non-
   interesting source address lists with EXCLUDE filter mode.

   Recently, Lightweight-IGMPv3 (LW-IGMPv3) and Lightweight-MLDv2 (LW-
   MLDv2) [9] are proposed in the IETF MBONED working group.  These
   protocols are the simplified versions of IGMPv3 and MLDv2, and
   eliminate an EXCLUDE filter mode operation.  Not only are LW-IGMPv3
   and LW-MLDv2 fully compatible with the full version of these
   protocols (i.e., the standard IGMPv3 and MLDv2), but also the
   protocol operations made by hosts and routers are simplified in the
   lightweight manner, and complicated operations are effectively
   reduced.  LW-IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2 give the opportunity to grow SSM
   use.

   In the lightweight protocols, EXCLUDE mode on the host part is
   preserved only for EXCLUDE (*,G) join/leave, which denotes a non-
   source-specific group report (known as the traditional (*,G) join/
   leave) and is equivalent to the group membership join/leave triggered
   by IGMPv2/IGMPv1/MLDv1.

   The aim of LW-IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2 is not only for contributing to the
   simpler implementation or reducing the memory size on a host.
   Another advantage is that it reduces the processing cost on upstream
   routers by eliminating the EXCLUDE filter mode operations.  If both
   INCLUDE and EXCLUDE filter mode operations are supported in the
   networks, the routers need to maintain all source addresses joined
   from their downstream hosts.  Even if a Shortest-Path Tree (SPT) is
   well coordinated, the routers need to refresh (and re-generate) some
   or all of the corresponding routing paths including the Rendezvous-
   Point Tree (RPT) whenever the downstream host requests EXLUDE filter
   mode join.  LW-IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2 preclude the unwilling situation.
   Since there is no side-effect, this document recommend to adopt LW-
   IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2 to mobile hosts and routers, or eliminate EXCLUDE
   filter mode operation from mobile hosts if IGMPv3 and MLDv2 are
   adopted to hosts.



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


4.  Implementations

4.1.  Host-Side Implementation

   Mobile hosts should implement IGMPv3 or LW-IGMPv3 for IPv4 multicast
   and MLDv2 or LW-MLDv2 for IPv6 multicast.  All of these protocols
   eliminate a membership report suppression mechanism, and make hosts
   work with the function multicast routers use to trace downstream
   member hosts.  These protocols also support SSM.  According to the
   protocol requirement aforementioned, however, this document
   recommends to implement LW-IGMPv3 for IPv4 and LW-MLDv2 for IPv6 [9]
   rather than the full version protocols.

4.2.  Router-Side Implementation

   To keep track of multicast membership status and cooperate with SSM
   capable mobile hosts, multicast routers must implement IGMPv3/
   LW-IGMPv3 or MLDv2/LW-MLDv2.  Regarding the router-side
   implementation, the function to trace downstream members requires the
   hardware requirement that would cost the router additional hardware
   resources, especially CPU and memory resources.

   [TODO: We assume that multicast routers are not tiny and non-powerful
   systems nor battery or power sensitive.]

   As well as the host-side implementation, the elimination of the
   EXCLUDE filter mode will greatly simplify the router behavior, e.g.
   the action on reception of reports and the setting of the timers.
   This document therefore recommends to implement LW-IGMPv3 for IPv4
   and LW-MLDv2 for IPv6 rather than their full version protocols.  The
   detailed operation being simplified is described in [9].




















Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


5.  Interoperability

   TBD.

   [TODO: We believe it would be currently feasible to assume the
   routers who take care of mobile hosts MUST be IGMPv3/MLDv2 capable
   (regardless whether the protocols are the full version or not).  What
   we should understand is whether there is the case that mobile hosts
   may not be IGMPv3/MLDv2 capable or not.]










































Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.
















































Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


7.  Acknowledgements

   Dave Thaler, Matthias Waehlisch, and others provided many
   constructive and insightful comments.















































Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
         levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]   Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
         Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3",
         RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [3]   Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
         (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [4]   Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", RFC 1112,
         August 1989.

   [5]   Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2",
         RFC 2373, July 1997.

   [6]   Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast Listener
         Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999.

   [7]   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.

   [8]   Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP",
         RFC 4607, August 2006.

8.2.  Informative References

   [9]   Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight IGMPv3 and MLDv2
         Protocols",
         draft-ietf-mboned-lightweight-igmpv3-mldv2-03.txt (work in
         progress), June 2008.

   [10]  Koodli, Ed., R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068,
         July 2005.

   [11]  Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy
         Mobile IPv6", draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-16.txt (work in
         progress), May 2008.

   [12]  Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and G. Fairhurst, "Multicast
         Mobility in MIPv6: Problem Statement and Brief Survey",
         draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-04.txt (work in progress),



Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


         July 2008.

   [13]  Jelger, C. and T. Noel, "Multicast for Mobile Hosts in IP
         Networks: Progress and Challenges", IEEE Wireless
         Comm. pp.58-64, October 2002.














































Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Hitoshi Asaeda
   Keio University
   Graduate School of Media and Governance
   5322 Endo
   Fujisawa, Kanagawa  252-8520
   Japan

   Email: asaeda@wide.ad.jp


   Thomas C. Schmidt
   HAW Hamburg
   Dept. Informatik
   Berliner Tor 7
   Hamburg,   D-20099
   Germany

   Email: Schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de































Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft    IGMP and MLD Extensions for Mobility         July 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Asaeda & Schmidt        Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 24]