Internet Area C. Perkins
Internet-Draft Blue Meadow Networks
Intended status: Informational M. McBride
Expires: June 13, 2020 Futurewei
D. Stanley
HPE
W. Kumari
Google
JC. Zuniga
SIGFOX
December 11, 2019
Multicast Considerations over IEEE 802 Wireless Media
draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11
Abstract
Well-known issues with multicast have prevented the deployment of
multicast in 802.11 (wifi) and other local-area wireless
environments.
This document describes the problems of known limitations with
wireless (primarily 802.11) Layer-2 multicast. Also described are
certain multicast enhancement features that have been specified by
the IETF, and by IEEE 802, for wireless media, as well as some
operational choices that can be taken to improve the performance of
the network. Finally, some recommendations are provided about the
usage and combination of these features and operational choices.
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 June 13, 2020.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Identified multicast issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Issues at Layer 2 and Below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Multicast reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Lower and Variable Data Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Capacity and Impact on Interference . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.4. Power-save Effects on Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Issues at Layer 3 and Above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. IPv4 issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. IPv6 issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. MLD issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4. Spurious Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Multicast protocol optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Proxy ARP in 802.11-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. IPv6 Address Registration and Proxy Neighbor Discovery . 11
4.3. Buffering to Improve Battery Life . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Limiting multicast buffer hardware queue depth . . . . . 13
4.5. IPv6 support in 802.11-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6. Using Unicast Instead of Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6.2. Layer 2 Conversion to Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6.3. Directed Multicast Service (DMS) . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6.4. Automatic Multicast Tunneling (AMT) . . . . . . . . . 15
4.7. GroupCast with Retries (GCR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Operational optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Mitigating Problems from Spurious Neighbor Discovery . . 16
5.2. Mitigating Spurious Service Discovery Messages . . . . . 18
6. Multicast Considerations for Other Wireless Media . . . . . . 18
7. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Discussion Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Changes in this draft between revisions 06 versus 07 24
Appendix B. Changes in this draft between revisions 05 versus 06 24
Appendix C. Changes in this draft between revisions 04 versus 05 25
Appendix D. Changes in this draft between revisions 03 versus 04 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
Well-known issues with multicast have prevented the deployment of
multicast in 802.11 [dot11] and other local-area wireless
environments, as described in [mc-props], [mc-prob-stmt].
Performance issues have been observed when multicast packet
transmissions of IETF protocols are used over IEEE 802 wireless
media. Even though enhancements for multicast transmissions have
been designed at both IETF and IEEE 802, incompatibilities still
exist between specifications, implementations and configuration
choices.
Many IETF protocols depend on multicast/broadcast for delivery of
control messages to multiple receivers. Multicast allows sending
data to multiple interested recipients without the source needing to
send duplicate data to each recipient. With broadcast traffic, data
is sent to every device regardless of their interest in the data.
Multicast is used for various purposes such as neighbor discovery,
network flooding, address resolution, as well minimizing media
occupancy for the transmission of data that is intended for multiple
receivers. In addition to protocol use of broadcast/multicast for
control messages, more applications, such as push to talk in
hospitals, or video in enterprises, universities, and homes, are
sending multicast IP to end user devices, which are increasingly
using Wi-Fi for their connectivity.
IETF protocols typically rely on network protocol layering in order
to reduce or eliminate any dependence of higher level protocols on
the specific nature of the MAC layer protocols or the physical media.
In the case of multicast transmissions, higher level protocols have
traditionally been designed as if transmitting a packet to an IP
address had the same cost in interference and network media access,
regardless of whether the destination IP address is a unicast address
or a multicast or broadcast address. This model was reasonable for
networks where the physical medium was wired, like Ethernet.
Unfortunately, for many wireless media, the costs to access the
medium can be quite different. Multicast over Wi-Fi has often been
plagued by such poor performance that it is disallowed. Some
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
enhancements have been designed in IETF protocols that are assumed to
work primarily over wireless media. However, these enhancements are
usually implemented in limited deployments and not widespread on most
wireless networks.
IEEE 802 wireless protocols have been designed with certain features
to support multicast traffic. For instance, lower modulations are
used to transmit multicast frames, so that these can be received by
all stations in the cell, regardless of the distance or path
attenuation from the base station or access point. However, these
lower modulation transmissions occupy the medium longer; they hamper
efficient transmission of traffic using higher order modulations to
nearby stations. For these and other reasons, IEEE 802 working
groups such as 802.11 have designed features to improve the
performance of multicast transmissions at Layer 2 [ietf_802-11]. In
addition to protocol design features, certain operational and
configuration enhancements can ameliorate the network performance
issues created by multicast traffic, as described in Section 5.
There seems to be general agreement that these problems will not be
fixed anytime soon, primarily because it's expensive to do so and due
to multicast being unreliable. Compared to unicast over Wi-Fi,
multicast is often treated as somewhat of a second class citizen,
even though there are many protocols using multicast. Something
needs to be provided in order to make them more reliable. IPv6
neighbor discovery saturating the Wi-Fi link is only part of the
problem. Wi-Fi traffic classes may help. This document is intended
to help make the determination about what problems should be solved
by the IETF and what problems should be solved by the IEEE (see
Section 8).
This document details various problems caused by multicast
transmission over wireless networks, including high packet error
rates, no acknowledgements, and low data rate. It also explains some
enhancements that have been designed at the IETF and IEEE 802.11 to
ameliorate the effects of multicast traffic. Recommendations are
also provided to implementors about how to use and combine these
enhancements. Some advice about the operational choices that can be
taken is also included. It is likely that this document will also be
considered relevant to designers of future IEEE wireless
specifications.
2. Terminology
This document uses the following definitions:
ACK
The 802.11 layer 2 acknowledgement
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
AP
IEEE 802.11 Access Point
basic rate
The slowest rate of all the connected devices, at which multicast
and broadcast traffic is generally transmitted
DTIM
Delivery Traffic Indication Map (DTIM): An information element
that advertises whether or not any associated stations have
buffered multicast or broadcast frames
MCS
Modulation and Coding Scheme
NOC
Network Operations Center
PER
Packet Error Rate
STA
802.11 station (e.g. handheld device)
TIM
Traffic Indication Map (TIM): An information element that
advertises whether or not any associated stations have buffered
unicast frames
3. Identified multicast issues
3.1. Issues at Layer 2 and Below
In this section some of the issues related to the use of multicast
transmissions over IEEE 802 wireless technologies are described.
3.1.1. Multicast reliability
Multicast traffic is typically much less reliable than unicast
traffic. Since multicast makes point-to-multipoint communications,
multiple acknowledgements would be needed to guarantee reception at
all recipients. Since there are no ACKs for multicast packets, it is
not possible for the Access Point (AP) to know whether or not a
retransmission is needed. Even in the wired Internet, this
characteristic often causes undesirably high error rates. This has
contributed to the relatively slow uptake of multicast applications
even though the protocols have long been available. The situation
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
for wireless links is much worse, and is quite sensitive to the
presence of background traffic. Consequently, there can be a high
packet error rate (PER) due to lack of retransmission, and because
the sender never backs off. It is not uncommon for there to be a
packet loss rate of 5% or more, which is particularly troublesome for
video and other environments where high data rates and high
reliability are required.
3.1.2. Lower and Variable Data Rate
Multicast over wired differs from multicast over wireless because
transmission over wired links often occurs at a fixed rate. Wi-Fi,
on the other hand, has a transmission rate that varies depending upon
the STA's proximity to the AP. The throughput of video flows, and
the capacity of the broader Wi-Fi network, will change and will
impact the ability for QoS solutions to effectively reserve bandwidth
and provide admission control.
For wireless stations associated with an Access Point, the power
necessary for good reception can vary from station to station. For
unicast, the goal is to minimize power requirements while maximizing
the data rate to the destination. For multicast, the goal is simply
to maximize the number of receivers that will correctly receive the
multicast packet; generally the Access Point has to use a much lower
data rate at a power level high enough for even the farthest station
to receive the packet, for example as briefly mentioned in section 2
of [RFC5757]. Consequently, the data rate of a video stream, for
instance, would be constrained by the environmental considerations of
the least reliable receiver associated with the Access Point.
Because more robust modulation and coding schemes (MCSs) have longer
range but also lower data rate, multicast / broadcast traffic is
generally transmitted at the slowest rate of all the connected
devices. This is also known as the basic rate. The amount of
additional interference depends on the specific wireless technology.
In fact, backward compatibility and multi-stream implementations mean
that the maximum unicast rates are currently up to a few Gbps, so
there can be more than 3 orders of magnitude difference in the
transmission rate between multicast / broadcast versus optimal
unicast forwarding. Some techiques employed to increase spectral
efficiency, such as spatial multiplexing in MIMO systems, are not
available with more than one intended receiver; it is not the case
that backwards compatibility is the only factor responsible for lower
multicast transmission rates.
Wired multicast also affects wireless LANs when the AP extends the
wired segment; in that case, multicast / broadcast frames on the
wired LAN side are copied to the Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN).
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
Since broadcast messages are transmitted at the most robust MCS, many
large frames are sent at a slow rate over the air.
3.1.3. Capacity and Impact on Interference
Transmissions at a lower rate require longer occupancy of the
wireless medium and thus take away from the airtime of other
communications and degrade the overall capacity. Furthermore,
transmission at higher power, as is required to reach all multicast
STAs associated to the AP, proportionately increases the area of
interference.
3.1.4. Power-save Effects on Multicast
One of the characteristics of multicast transmission is that every
station has to be configured to wake up to receive the multicast,
even though the received packet may ultimately be discarded. This
process can have a large effect on the power consumption by the
multicast receiver station.
Multicast can work poorly with the power-save mechanisms defined in
IEEE 802.11e, for the following reasons.
o Clients may be unable to stay in sleep mode due to multicast
control packets frequently waking them up.
o Both unicast and multicast traffic can be delayed by power-saving
mechanisms.
o A unicast packet is delayed until an STA wakes up and requests it.
Unicast traffic may also be delayed to improve power save,
efficiency and increase probability of aggregation.
o Multicast traffic is delayed in a wireless network if any of the
STAs in that network are power savers. All STAs associated to the
AP have to be awake at a known time to receive multicast traffic.
o Packets can also be discarded due to buffer limitations in the AP
and non-AP STA.
3.2. Issues at Layer 3 and Above
This section identifies some representative IETF protocols, and
describes possible negative effects due to performance degradation
when using multicast transmissions for control messages. Common uses
of multicast include:
o Control plane signaling
o Neighbor Discovery
o Address Resolution
o Service Discovery
o Applications (video delivery, stock data, etc.)
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
o On-demand routing
o Backbone construction
o Other L3 protocols (non-IP)
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is the most common transport layer
protocol for multicast applications. By itself, UDP is not reliable
-- messages may be lost or delivered out of order.
3.2.1. IPv4 issues
The following list contains some representative discovery protocols,
which utlize broadcast/multicast, that are used with IPv4.
o ARP
o DHCP
o mDNS [RFC6762]
o uPnP [RFC6970]
After initial configuration, ARP (described in more detail later) and
DHCP occur much less commonly, but service discovery can occur at any
time. Some widely-deployed service discovery protocols (e.g., for
finding a printer) utilize mDNS (i.e., multicast). It's often the
first service that operators drop. Even if multicast snooping is
utilized, many devices can register at once and cause serious network
degradation.
3.2.2. IPv6 issues
IPv6 makes extensive use of multicast, including the following:
o DHCPv6
o Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
o IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) [RFC4861]
o multicast DNS (mDNS)
o Route Discovery
o Decentralized Address Assignment
o Geographic routing
IPv6 NDP Neighbor Solicitation (NS) messages used in Duplicate
Address Detection (DAD) and Address Lookup make use of Link-Scope
multicast. In contrast to IPv4, an IPv6 node will typically use
multiple addresses, and may change them often for privacy reasons.
This intensifies the impact of multicast messages that are associated
to the mobility of a node. Router advertisement (RA) messages are
also periodically multicasted over the Link.
Neighbors may be considered lost if several consecutive Neighbor
Discovery packets fail.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
3.2.3. MLD issues
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC4541] is used to identify
members of a multicast group that are connected to the ports of a
switch. Forwarding multicast frames into a Wi-Fi-enabled area can
use such switch support for hardware forwarding state information.
However, since IPv6 makes heavy use of multicast, each STA with an
IPv6 address will require state on the switch for several and
possibly many multicast solicited-node addresses. Multicast
addresses that do not have forwarding state installed (perhaps due to
hardware memory limitations on the switch) cause frames to be flooded
on all ports of the switch. Some switch vendors do not support MLD,
for link-scope multicast, due to the increase it can cause in state.
3.2.4. Spurious Neighbor Discovery
On the Internet there is a "background radiation" of scanning traffic
(people scanning for vulnerable machines) and backscatter (responses
from spoofed traffic, etc). This means that routers very often
receive packets destined for IPv4 addresses regardless of whether
those IP addresses are in use. In the cases where the IP is assigned
to a host, the router broadcasts an ARP request, gets back an ARP
reply, and caches it; then traffic can be delivered to the host.
When the IP address is not in use, the router broadcasts one (or
more) ARP requests, and never gets a reply. This means that it does
not populate the ARP cache, and the next time there is traffic for
that IP address the router will rebroadcast the ARP requests.
The rate of these ARP requests is proportional to the size of the
subnets, the rate of scanning and backscatter, and how long the
router keeps state on non-responding ARPs. As it turns out, this
rate is inversely proportional to how occupied the subnet is (valid
ARPs end up in a cache, stopping the broadcasting; unused IPs never
respond, and so cause more broadcasts). Depending on the address
space in use, the time of day, how occupied the subnet is, and other
unknown factors, thousands of broadcasts per second have been
observed. Around 2,000 broadcasts per second have been observed at
the IETF NOC during face-to-face meetings.
With Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 [RFC2461], nodes accomplish address
resolution by multicasting a Neighbor Solicitation that asks the
target node to return its link-layer address. Neighbor Solicitation
messages are multicast to the solicited-node multicast address of the
target address. The target returns its link-layer address in a
unicast Neighbor Advertisement message. A single request-response
pair of packets is sufficient for both the initiator and the target
to resolve each other's link-layer addresses; the initiator includes
its link-layer address in the Neighbor Solicitation.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
On a wired network, there is not a huge difference between unicast,
multicast and broadcast traffic. Due to hardware filtering (see,
e.g., [Deri-2010]), inadvertently flooded traffic (or excessive
ethernet multicast) on wired networks can be quite a bit less costly,
compared to wireless cases where sleeping devices have to wake up to
process packets. Wired Ethernets tend to be switched networks,
further reducing interference from multicast. There is effectively
no collision / scheduling problem except at extremely high port
utilizations.
This is not true in the wireless realm; wireless equipment is often
unable to send high volumes of broadcast and multicast traffic,
causing numerous broadcast and multicast packets to be dropped.
Consequently, when a host connects it is often not able to complete
DHCP, and IPv6 RAs get dropped, leading to users being unable to use
the network.
4. Multicast protocol optimizations
This section lists some optimizations that have been specified in
IEEE 802 and IETF that are aimed at reducing or eliminating the
issues discussed in Section 3.
4.1. Proxy ARP in 802.11-2012
The AP knows the MAC address and IP address for all associated STAs.
In this way, the AP acts as the central "manager" for all the 802.11
STAs in its basic service set (BSS). Proxy ARP is easy to implement
at the AP, and offers the following advantages:
o Reduced broadcast traffic (transmitted at low MCS) on the wireless
medium
o STA benefits from extended power save in sleep mode, as ARP
requests for STA's IP address are handled instead by the AP.
o ARP frames are kept off the wireless medium.
o No changes are needed to STA implementation.
Here is the specification language as described in clause 10.23.13 of
[dot11-proxyarp]:
When the AP supports Proxy ARP "[...] the AP shall maintain a
Hardware Address to Internet Address mapping for each associated
station, and shall update the mapping when the Internet Address of
the associated station changes. When the IPv4 address being
resolved in the ARP request packet is used by a non-AP STA
currently associated to the BSS, the proxy ARP service shall
respond on behalf of the non-AP STA".
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
4.2. IPv6 Address Registration and Proxy Neighbor Discovery
As used in this section, a Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) denotes a low power lossy network (LLN) that supports
6LoWPAN Header Compression (HC) [RFC6282]. A 6TiSCH network
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] is an example of a 6LowPAN. In order
to control the use of IPv6 multicast over 6LoWPANs, the 6LoWPAN
Neighbor Discovery (6LoWPAN ND) [RFC6775] standard defines an address
registration mechanism that relies on a central registry to assess
address uniqueness, as a substitute to the inefficient DAD mechanism
found in the mainstream IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP)
[RFC4861][RFC4862].
The 6lo Working Group has specified an update [RFC8505] to RFC6775.
Wireless devices can register their address to a Backbone Router
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router], which proxies for the registered
addresses with the IPv6 NDP running on a high speed aggregating
backbone. The update also enables a proxy registration mechanism on
behalf of the registered node, e.g. by a 6LoWPAN router to which the
mobile node is attached.
The general idea behind the backbone router concept is that broadcast
and multicast messaging should be tightly controlled in a variety of
WLANs and Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs). Connectivity to a
particular link that provides the subnet should be left to Layer-3.
The model for the Backbone Router operation is represented in
Figure 1.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
|
+-----+
| | Gateway (default) router
| |
+-----+
|
| Backbone Link
+--------------------+------------------+
| | |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | Backbone | | Backbone | | Backbone
| | router 1 | | router 2 | | router 3
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
LLN 1 LLN 2 LLN 3
Figure 1: Backbone Link and Backbone Routers
LLN nodes can move freely from an LLN anchored at one IPv6 Backbone
Router to an LLN anchored at another Backbone Router on the same
backbone, keeping any of the IPv6 addresses they have configured.
The Backbone Routers maintain a Binding Table of their Registered
Nodes, which serves as a distributed database of all the LLN Nodes.
An extension to the Neighbor Discovery Protocol is introduced to
exchange Binding Table information across the Backbone Link as needed
for the operation of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery.
RFC6775 and follow-on work [RFC8505] address the needs of LLNs, and
similar techniques are likely to be valuable on any type of link
where sleeping devices are attached, or where the use of broadcast
and multicast operations should be limited.
4.3. Buffering to Improve Battery Life
Methods have been developed to help save battery life; for example, a
device might not wake up when the AP receives a multicast packet.
The AP acts on behalf of STAs in various ways. To enable use of the
power-saving feature for STAs in its BSS, the AP buffers frames for
delivery to the STA at the time when the STA is scheduled for
reception. If an AP, for instance, expresses a DTIM (Delivery
Traffic Indication Message) of 3 then the AP will send a multicast
packet every 3 packets. In fact, when any single wireless STA
associated with an access point has 802.11 power-save mode enabled,
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
the access point buffers all multicast frames and sends them only
after the next DTIM beacon.
In practice, most AP's will send a multicast every 30 packets. For
unicast the AP could send a TIM (Traffic Indication Message), but for
multicast the AP sends a broadcast to everyone. DTIM does power
management but STAs can choose whether or not to wake up and whether
or not to drop the packet. Unfortunately, without proper
administrative control, such STAs may be unable to determine why
their multicast operations do not work.
4.4. Limiting multicast buffer hardware queue depth
The CAB (Content after Beacon) queue is used for beacon-triggered
transmission of buffered multicast frames. If lots of multicast
frames were buffered, and this queue fills up, it drowns out all
regular traffic. To limit the damage that buffered traffic can do,
some drivers limit the amount of queued multicast data to a fraction
of the beacon_interval. An example of this is [CAB].
4.5. IPv6 support in 802.11-2012
IPv6 uses NDP instead of ARP. Every IPv6 node subscribes to a
special multicast address for this purpose.
Here is the specification language from clause 10.23.13 of
[dot11-proxyarp]:
"When an IPv6 address is being resolved, the Proxy Neighbor
Discovery service shall respond with a Neighbor Advertisement
message [...] on behalf of an associated STA to an [ICMPv6]
Neighbor Solicitation message [...]. When MAC address mappings
change, the AP may send unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement
Messages on behalf of a STA."
NDP may be used to request additional information
o Maximum Transmission Unit
o Router Solicitation
o Router Advertisement, etc.
NDP messages are sent as group addressed (broadcast) frames in
802.11. Using the proxy operation helps to keep NDP messages off the
wireless medium.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
4.6. Using Unicast Instead of Multicast
It is often possible to transmit multicast control and data messages
by using unicast transmissions to each station individually.
4.6.1. Overview
In many situations, it's a good choice to use unicast instead of
multicast over the Wi-Fi link. This avoids most of the problems
specific to multicast over Wi-Fi, since the individual frames are
then acknowledged and buffered for power save clients, in the way
that unicast traffic normally operates.
This approach comes with the tradeoff of sometimes sending the same
packet multiple times over the Wi-Fi link. However, in many cases,
such as video into a residential home network, this can be a good
tradeoff, since the Wi-Fi link may have enough capacity for the
unicast traffic to be transmitted to each subscribed STA, even though
multicast addressing may have been necessary for the upstream access
network.
Several technologies exist that can be used to arrange unicast
transport over the Wi-Fi link, outlined in the subsections below.
4.6.2. Layer 2 Conversion to Unicast
It is often possible to transmit multicast control and data messages
by using unicast transmissions to each station individually.
Although there is not yet a standardized method of conversion, at
least one widely available implementation exists in the Linux
bridging code [bridge-mc-2-uc]. Other proprietary implementations
are available from various vendors. In general, these
implementations perform a straightforward mapping for groups or
channels, discovered by IGMP or MLD snooping, to the corresponding
unicast MAC addresses.
4.6.3. Directed Multicast Service (DMS)
There are situations where more is needed than simply converting
multicast to unicast.
For these purposes, DMS enables an STA to request that the AP
transmit multicast group addressed frames destined to the requesting
STAs as individually addressed frames [i.e., convert multicast to
unicast]. Here are some characteristics of DMS:
o Requires 802.11n A-MSDUs
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
o Individually addressed frames are acknowledged and are buffered
for power save STAs
o The requesting STA may specify traffic characteristics for DMS
traffic
o DMS was defined in IEEE Std 802.11v-2011
o DMS requires changes to both AP and STA implementation.
DMS is not currently implemented in products. See [Tramarin2017] and
[Oliva2013] for more information.
4.6.4. Automatic Multicast Tunneling (AMT)
AMT[RFC7450] provides a method to tunnel multicast IP packets inside
unicast IP packets over network links that only support unicast.
When an operating system or application running on an STA has an AMT
gateway capability integrated, it's possible to use unicast to
traverse the Wi-Fi link by deploying an AMT relay in the non-Wi-Fi
portion of the network connected to the AP.
It is recommended that multicast-enabled networks deploying AMT
relays for this purpose make the relays locally discoverable with the
following methods, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery]:
o DNS-SD [RFC6763]
o the well-known IP addresses from Section 7 of [RFC7450]
An AMT gateway that implements multiple standard discovery methods is
more likely to discover the local multicast-capable network, instead
of forming a connection to a non-local AMT relay further upstream.
4.7. GroupCast with Retries (GCR)
GCR (defined in [dot11aa]) provides greater reliability by using
either unsolicited retries or a block acknowledgement mechanism. GCR
increases probability of broadcast frame reception success, but still
does not guarantee success.
For the block acknowledgement mechanism, the AP transmits each group
addressed frame as conventional group addressed transmission.
Retransmissions are group addressed, but hidden from non-11aa STAs.
A directed block acknowledgement scheme is used to harvest reception
status from receivers; retransmissions are based upon these
responses.
GCR is suitable for all group sizes including medium to large groups.
As the number of devices in the group increases, GCR can send block
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
acknowledgement requests to only a small subset of the group. GCR
does require changes to both AP and STA implementations.
GCR may introduce unacceptable latency. After sending a group of
data frames to the group, the AP has do the following:
o unicast a Block Ack Request (BAR) to a subset of members.
o wait for the corresponding Block Ack (BA).
o retransmit any missed frames.
o resume other operations that may have been delayed.
This latency may not be acceptable for some traffic.
There are ongoing extensions in 802.11 to improve GCR performance.
o BAR is sent using downlink MU-MIMO (note that downlink MU-MIMO is
already specified in 802.11-REVmc 4.3).
o BA is sent using uplink MU-MIMO (which is a .11ax feature).
o Additional 802.11ax extensions are under consideration; see
[mc-ack-mux]
o Latency may also be reduced by simultaneously receiving BA
information from multiple STAs.
5. Operational optimizations
This section lists some operational optimizations that can be
implemented when deploying wireless IEEE 802 networks to mitigate the
issues discussed in Section 3.
5.1. Mitigating Problems from Spurious Neighbor Discovery
ARP Sponges
An ARP Sponge sits on a network and learn which IP addresses
are actually in use. It also listen for ARP requests, and, if
it sees an ARP for an IP address that it believes is not used,
it will reply with its own MAC address. This means that the
router now has an IP to MAC mapping, which it caches. If that
IP is later assigned to an machine (e.g using DHCP), the ARP
sponge will see this, and will stop replying for that address.
Gratuitous ARPs (or the machine ARPing for its gateway) will
replace the sponged address in the router ARP table. This
technique is quite effective; but, unfortunately, the ARP
sponge daemons were not really designed for this use (one of
the most widely deployed arp sponges [arpsponge], was designed
to deal with the disappearance of participants from an IXP) and
so are not optimized for this purpose. One daemon is needed
per subnet, the tuning is tricky (the scanning rate versus the
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
population rate versus retires, etc.) and sometimes the daemons
just seem to stop, requiring a restart of the daemon and
causing disruption.
Router mitigations
Some routers (often those based on Linux) implement a "negative
ARP cache" daemon. Simply put, if the router does not see a
reply to an ARP it can be configured to cache this information
for some interval. Unfortunately, the core routers in use
often do not support this. When a host connects to a network
and gets an IP address, it will ARP for its default gateway
(the router). The router will update its cache with the IP to
host MAC mapping learned from the request (passive ARP
learning).
Firewall unused space
The distribution of users on wireless networks / subnets
changes from one IETF meeting to the next (e.g SSIDs are
renamed, some SSIDs lose favor, etc). This makes utilization
for particular SSIDs difficult to predict ahead of time, but
usage can be monitored as attendees use the different networks.
Configuring multiple DHCP pools per subnet, and enabling them
sequentially, can create a large subnet, from which only
addresses in the lower portions are assigned. Therefore input
IP access lists can be applied, which deny traffic to the
upper, unused portions. Then the router does not attempt to
forward packets to the unused portions of the subnets, and so
does not ARP for it. This method has proven to be very
effective, but is somewhat of a blunt axe, is fairly labor
intensive, and requires coordination.
Disabling/filtering ARP requests
In general, the router does not need to ARP for hosts; when a
host connects, the router can learn the IP to MAC mapping from
the ARP request sent by that host. Consequently it should be
possible to disable and / or filter ARP requests from the
router. Unfortunately, ARP is a very low level / fundamental
part of the IP stack, and is often offloaded from the normal
control plane. While many routers can filter layer-2 traffic,
this is usually implemented as an input filter and / or has
limited ability to filter output broadcast traffic. This means
that the simple "just disable ARP or filter it outbound" seems
like a really simple (and obvious) solution, but
implementations / architectural issues make this difficult or
awkward in practice.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
NAT
The broadcasts are overwhelmingly being caused by outside
scanning / backscatter traffic. To NAT the entire (or a large
portion) of the attendee networks would eliminate NAT
translation entries for unused addresses, and so the router
would never ARP for them. However, there are many reasons to
avoid using NAT in such a blanket fashion.
Stateful firewalls
Another obvious solution would be to put a stateful firewall
between the wireless network and the Internet. This firewall
would block incoming traffic not associated with an outbound
request. But this conflicts with the need and desire of the
IETF and other organizations to have the network as open as
possible and to honor the end-to-end principle. An attendee on
the meeting network should be an Internet host, and should be
able to receive unsolicited requests. Unfortunately, keeping
the network working and stable is the first priority and a
stateful firewall may be required in order to achieve this.
5.2. Mitigating Spurious Service Discovery Messages
In networks that must support hundreds of STAs, operators have
observed network degradation due to many devices simultaneously
registering with mDNS. In a network with many clients, it is
recommended to ensure that mDNS packets designed to discover
services in smaller home networks be constrained to avoid
disrupting other traffic.
6. Multicast Considerations for Other Wireless Media
Many of the causes of performance degradation described in earlier
sections are also observable for wireless media other than 802.11.
For instance, problems with power save, excess media occupancy, and
poor reliability will also affect 802.15.3 and 802.15.4.
Unfortunately, 802.15 media specifications do not yet include
mechanisms similar to those developed for 802.11. In fact, the
design philosophy for 802.15 is oriented towards minimality, with the
result that many such functions are relegated to operation within
higher layer protocols. This leads to a patchwork of non-
interoperable and vendor-specific solutions. See [uli] for some
additional discussion, and a proposal for a task group to resolve
similar issues, in which the multicast problems might be considered
for mitigation.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
Similar considerations hold for most other wireless media. A brief
introduction is provided in [RFC5757] for the following:
o 802.16 WIMAX
o 3GPP/3GPP2
o DVB-H / DVB-IPDC
o TV Broadcast and Satellite Networks
7. Recommendations
This section provides some recommendations about the usage and
combinations of the multicast enhancements described in Section 4 and
Section 5.
Future protocol documents utilizing multicast signaling should be
carefully scrutinized if the protocol is likely to be used over
wireless media.
Proxy methods should be encouraged to conserve network bandwidth and
power utilization by low-power devices. The device can use a unicast
message to its proxy, and then the proxy can take care of any needed
multicast operations.
Multicast signaling for wireless devices should be done in a way
compatible with low duty-cycle operation.
8. Discussion Items
This section suggests two discussion items for further resolution.
The IETF should determine guidelines by which it may be decided that
multicast packets are to be sent wired. For example, 802.1ak works
on ethernet and Wi-Fi. 802.1ak has been pulled into 802.1Q as of
802.1Q-2011. If a generic solution is not found, guidelines for
multicast over Wi-Fi should be established.
Reliable registration to Layer-2 multicast groups and a reliable
multicast operation at Layer-2 might provide a generic solution.
There is no need to support 2^24 groups to get solicited node
multicast working: it is possible to simply select a number of
trailing bits that make sense for a given network size to limit the
number of unwanted deliveries to reasonable levels. IEEE 802.1,
802.11, and 802.15 should be encouraged to revisit L2 multicast
issues. In reality, Wi-Fi provides a broadcast service, not a
multicast service. On the physical medium, all frames are broadcast
except in very unusual cases in which special beamforming
transmitters are used. Unicast offers the advantage of being much
faster (2 orders of magnitude) and much more reliable (L2 ARQ).
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce or modify any security mechanisms.
Multicast is made more secure in a variety of ways. [RFC4601], for
instance, mandates the use of IPsec to ensure authentication of the
link-local messages in the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol. [RFC5796]specifies mechanisms to
authenticate the PIM-SM link-local messages using the IP security
(IPsec) Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) or (optionally) the
Authentication Header (AH).
As noted in [group_key], the unreliable nature of multicast
transmission over wireless media can cause subtle problems with
multicast group key management and updates. When WPA (TKIP) or WPA2
(AES-CCMP) encryption is in use, AP to client (From DS) multicasts
have to be encrypted with a separate encryption key that is known to
all of the clients (this is called the Group Key). Quoting further
from that website, "... most clients are able to get connected and
surf the web, check email, etc. even when From DS multicasts are
broken. So a lot of people don't realize they have multicast
problems on their network..."
10. IANA Considerations
This document does not request any IANA actions.
11. Acknowledgements
This document has benefitted from discussions with the following
people, in alphabetical order: Mikael Abrahamsson, Bill Atwood,
Stuart Cheshire, Donald Eastlake, Toerless Eckert, Jake Holland, Joel
Jaeggli, Jan Komissar, David Lamparter, Morten Pedersen, Pascal
Thubert, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
12. Informative References
[arpsponge]
Wessel, M. and N. Sijm, "Effects of IPv4 and IPv6 address
resolution on AMS-IX and the ARP Sponge", July 2009,
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
summary?doi=10.1.1.182.4692>.
[bridge-mc-2-uc]
Fietkau, F., "bridge: multicast to unicast", Jan 2017,
<https://github.com/torvalds/linux/
commit/6db6f0eae6052b70885562e1733896647ec1d807>.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
[CAB] Fietkau, F., "Limit multicast buffer hardware queue
depth", 2013,
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2687951/>.
[Deri-2010]
Deri, L. and J. Gasparakis, "10 Gbit Hardware Packet
Filtering Using Commodity Network Adapters", RIPE 61,
2010, <http://ripe61.ripe.net/
presentations/138-Deri_RIPE_61.pdf>.
[dot11] "IEEE 802 Wireless", "802.11-2016 - IEEE Standard for
Information technology--Telecommunications and information
exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area
networks--Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
Specification (includes 802.11v amendment)", March 2016,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.11-2016.html>.
[dot11-proxyarp]
Hiertz, G., Mestanov, F., and B. Hart, "Proxy ARP in
802.11ax", September 2015,
<https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-1015-01-00ax-
proxy-arp-in-802-11ax.pptx>.
[dot11aa] "IEEE 802 Wireless", "Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications
Amendment 2: MAC Enhancements for Robust Audio Video
Streaming", March 2012,
<https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_11aa-2012.html>.
[group_key]
Spiff, "Why do some WiFi routers block multicast packets
going from wired to wireless?", Jan 2017,
<https://superuser.com/questions/730288/why-do-some-wifi-
routers-block-multicast-packets-going-from-wired-to-
wireless>.
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]
Thubert, P., Perkins, C., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "IPv6
Backbone Router", draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-13 (work
in progress), September 2019.
[I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-28 (work
in progress), October 2019.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
[I-D.ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery]
Holland, J., "DNS Reverse IP AMT Discovery", draft-ietf-
mboned-driad-amt-discovery-09 (work in progress), October
2019.
[ietf_802-11]
Stanley, D., "IEEE 802.11 multicast capabilities", Nov
2015, <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/
dcn/15/11-15-1261-03-0arc-multicast-performance-
optimization-features-overview-for-ietf-nov-2015.ppt>.
[mc-ack-mux]
Tanaka, Y., Sakai, E., Morioka, Y., Mori, M., Hiertz, G.,
and S. Coffey, "Multiplexing of Acknowledgements for
Multicast Transmission", July 2015,
<https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-0800-00-00ax-
multiplexing-of-acknowledgements-for-multicast-
transmission.pptx>.
[mc-prob-stmt]
Abrahamsson, M. and A. Stephens, "Multicast on 802.11",
March 2015, <https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-
uploads/2013/01/multicast-problem-statement.pptx>.
[mc-props]
Stephens, A., "IEEE 802.11 multicast properties", March
2015, <https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/
dcn/15/11-15-1161-02-0arc-802-11-multicast-
properties.ppt>.
[Oliva2013]
de la Oliva, A., Serrano, P., Salvador, P., and A. Banchs,
"Performance evaluation of the IEEE 802.11aa multicast
mechanisms for video streaming", 2013 IEEE 14th
International Symposium on "A World of Wireless, Mobile
and Multimedia Networks" (WoWMoM) pp. 1-9, June 2013.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2461>.
[RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
"Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping
Switches", RFC 4541, DOI 10.17487/RFC4541, May 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4541>.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC5757] Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., and G. Fairhurst, "Multicast
Mobility in Mobile IP Version 6 (MIPv6): Problem Statement
and Brief Survey", RFC 5757, DOI 10.17487/RFC5757,
February 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5757>.
[RFC5796] Atwood, W., Islam, S., and M. Siami, "Authentication and
Confidentiality in Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) Link-Local Messages", RFC 5796,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5796, March 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5796>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
[RFC6970] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Universal Plug and
Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control
Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)", RFC 6970,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6970, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6970>.
[RFC7450] Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[Tramarin2017]
Tramarin, F., Vitturi, S., and M. Luvisotto, "IEEE 802.11n
for Distributed Measurement Systems", 2017 IEEE
International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology
Conference (I2MTC) pp. 1-6, May 2017.
[uli] Kinney, P., "LLC Proposal for 802.15.4", Nov 2015,
<https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/15/15-15-0521-01-wng0-
llc-proposal-for-802-15-4.pptx>.
Appendix A. Changes in this draft between revisions 06 versus 07
This section lists the changes between revisions ...-06.txt and
...-07.txt of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems.
o Improved wording in section describing ARPsponge.
o Removed DRIAD as a discovery mechanism for multicast relays.
o Updated bibliographic citations, repaired broken URLs as needed.
o More editorial improvements and grammatical corrections.
Appendix B. Changes in this draft between revisions 05 versus 06
This section lists the changes between revisions ...-05.txt and
...-06.txt of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems.
o Included new text in Security Considerations to alert about
problems regarding Group Key management caused by multicast
unreliability and implementation bugs.
o Included DRIAD as a discovery mechanism for multicast relays.
o Corrected occurrences of "which" versus "that" and "amount" versus
"number".
o Updated bibliographic citations, included URLs as needed.
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
o More editorial improvements and grammatical corrections.
Appendix C. Changes in this draft between revisions 04 versus 05
This section lists the changes between revisions ...-04.txt and
...-05.txt of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems.
o Incorporated text from Jake Holland for a new section about
conversion of multicast to unicast and included AMT as an existing
solution.
o Included some text about likely future multicast applications that
will emphasize the need for attention to the technical matters
collected in this document.
o Further modified text to be more generic instead of referring
specifically to IETF conference situations.
o Modified text to be more generic instead of referring specifically
to Bonjour.
o Added uPnP as a representative multicast protocol in IP networks.
o Referred to Linux bridging code for multicast to unicast.
o Updated bibliographic citations, included URLs as needed.
o More editorial improvements and grammatical corrections.
Appendix D. Changes in this draft between revisions 03 versus 04
This section lists the changes between revisions ...-03.txt and
...-04.txt of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems.
o Replaced "client" by "STA".
o Used terminology "Wi-Fi" throughout.
o Many editorial improvements and grammatical corrections.
o Modified text to be more generic instead of referring specifically
to IETF conference situations.
o Cited [RFC5757] for introduction to other wireless media.
o Updated bibliographic citations.
Authors' Addresses
Charles E. Perkins
Blue Meadow Networks
Phone: +1-408-330-4586
Email: charliep@computer.org
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Multicast Over IEEE 802 Wireless December 2019
Mike McBride
Futurewei Technologies Inc.
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95055
USA
Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com
Dorothy Stanley
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
2000 North Naperville Rd.
Naperville, IL 60566
USA
Phone: +1 630 979 1572
Email: dstanley@arubanetworks.com
Warren Kumari
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: warren@kumari.net
Juan Carlos Zuniga
SIGFOX
425 rue Jean Rostand
Labege 31670
France
Email: j.c.zuniga@ieee.org
Perkins, et al. Expires June 13, 2020 [Page 26]
