--- 1/draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-12.txt 2014-01-31 14:14:33.108071482 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-13.txt 2014-01-31 14:14:33.148072454 -0800 @@ -1,34 +1,35 @@ Network Working Group H. Chan (Ed.) Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies (more Intended status: Informational co-authors on P. 17) -Expires: June 5, 2014 D. Liu +Expires: August 4, 2014 D. Liu China Mobile P. Seite Orange H. Yokota KDDI Lab J. Korhonen Broadcom Communications - December 2, 2013 + January 31, 2014 Requirements for Distributed Mobility Management - draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-12 + draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-13 Abstract This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility - Management (DMM). The hierarchical structure in traditional wireless - networks has led primarily to centralized deployment models. As some - wireless networks are evolving away from the hierarchical structure, - a distributed model for mobility management can be useful to them. + Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in + traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centralized + deployment models. As some wireless networks are evolving away from + the hierarchical structure, a distributed model for mobility + management can be useful to them. Requirements Language 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Status of this Memo @@ -37,97 +38,90 @@ 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 http://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 5, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2014. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 5 - 3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.1. Distributed processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.3. IPv6 deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.4. Existing mobility protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.5. Co-existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5.6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.7. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management . . . . . . 6 + 3.1. Centralized mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.2. Distributed mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 8. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Introduction - In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been - standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] [RFC5213]. - Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and associated - message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to allow a mobile - node to remain reachable after it has moved to a different network. - The anchor point, among other tasks, ensures connectivity by - forwarding packets destined to, or sent from, the mobile node. It is - a centrally deployed mobility anchor in the sense that the deployed - architectures today have a small number of these anchors and the - traffic of millions of mobile nodes in an operator network are - typically managed by the same anchor. + In the past decade a fair number of network-layer mobility protocols + have been standardized [RFC6275] [RFC5944] [RFC5380] [RFC6301] + [RFC5213]. Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and + associated message formats, they all employ a mobility anchor to + allow a mobile node to remain reachable after it has moved to a + different network. The anchor point, among other tasks, ensures + connectivity by forwarding packets destined to, or sent from, the + mobile node. It is a centrally deployed mobility anchor in the sense + that the deployed architectures today have a small number of these + anchors and the traffic of millions of mobile nodes in an operator + network are typically managed by the same anchor. Distributed mobility management (DMM) is an alternative to the above centralized deployment. The background behind the interests to study DMM are primarily in the following. (1) Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content including that of local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) which had not taken mobility service into account before. Such traffic imposes new requirements on mobile core networks for data traffic delivery. To prevent exceeding the available core network capacity, service providers need to implement new strategies such as selective IPv4 traffic offload (e.g. - [RFC6909], 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO [TS.23.401]) through - alternative access networks (e.g. WLAN) [Paper- - Mobile.Data.Offloading]. In addition, a gateway selection - mechanism takes the user proximity into account within EPC - [TS.29303]. Yet these mechanisms were not pursued in the past - owing to charging and billing which require solutions beyond the - mobility protocol. Consequently, assigning a gateway anchor - node from a visited network in roaming scenario has until - recently been done and are limited to voice services only. + [RFC6909], 3GPP work items Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected + IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO) [TS.23.401]) through alternative + access networks (e.g. WLAN) [Paper-Mobile.Data.Offloading]. In + addition, a gateway selection mechanism takes the user proximity + into account within EPC [TS.29303]. Yet these mechanisms were + not pursued in the past owing to charging and billing which + require solutions beyond the mobility protocol. Consequently, + assigning a gateway anchor node from a visited network in + roaming scenario has until recently been done and are limited to + voice services only. Both traffic offloading and CDN mechanisms could benefit from the development of mobile architectures with fewer levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path by the mobility management system. This trend towards so-called "flat networks" works best for direct communications among peers in the same geographical area. Distributed mobility management in a truly flat mobile architecture would anchor the traffic closer to the point of attachment of the user. @@ -141,41 +135,38 @@ mobility support is designed for always-on operation, maintaining all parameters of the context for each mobile subscriber for as long as they are connected to the network. This can result in a waste of resources and unnecessary costs for the service provider. Infrequent node mobility coupled with application intelligence suggest that mobility support could be provided selectively such as in [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based- prefix] and [I-D.korhonen-6man-prefix-properties], thus reducing the amount of context maintained in the network. - The distributed mobility management (DMM) charter addresses two - complementary aspects of mobility management procedures: the - distribution of mobility anchors in the data-plane towards a more - flat network and the selective activation/deactivation of mobility - protocol support as an enabler to distributed mobility management. - The former aims at positioning mobility anchors (e.g., HA, LMA) + DMM may distribute the mobility anchors in the data-plane towards a + more flat network such that the mobility anchors are positioned closer to the user; ideally, mobility agents could be collocated with - the first-hop router. The latter, facilitated by the distribution of - mobility anchors, identifies when mobility support must be activated - and when sessions do not require mobility management support -- thus - reducing the amount of state information that must be maintained in - various mobility agents of the mobile network. It can then avoid the - unnecessary establishment of mechanisms to forward traffic from an - old to a new mobility anchor. + the first-hop router. Facilitated by the distribution of mobility + anchors, DMM may also selectively activate/deactivate mobility + protocol support. There is need to identify when mobility support + must be activated and when sessions do not require mobility + management support. It can thus reduce the amount of state + information that must be maintained in various mobility agents of the + mobile network. It can then avoid the unnecessary establishment of + mechanisms to forward traffic from an old to a new mobility anchor. This document compares distributed mobility management with centralized mobility management in Section 3. The problems that can be addressed with DMM are summarized in Section 4. The mandatory - requirements as well as the optional requirements are given in - Section 5. Finally, security considerations are discussed in Section - 6. + requirements as well as the optional requirements for network-layer + distributed mobility management are given in Section 5. Finally, + security considerations are discussed in Section 6. The problem statement and the use cases [I-D.yokota-dmm-scenario] can be found in [Paper-Distributed.Mobility.Review]. 2. Conventions used in this document 2.1. Terminology All the general mobility-related terms and their acronyms used in this document are to be interpreted as defined in the Mobile IPv6 @@ -208,59 +199,66 @@ has few levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path by the mobility management system. Mobility context is the collection of information required to provide mobility management support for a given mobile node. 3. Centralized versus distributed mobility management - Mobility management functions may be implemented at different layers - of the protocol stack. At the IP (network) layer, mobility - management can be client-based or network-based. + Mobility management is needed because the IP address of a mobile node + may change as the node moves. Mobility management functions may be + implemented at different layers of the protocol stack. At the IP + (network) layer, mobility management can be client-based or network- + based. An IP-layer mobility management protocol is typically based on the - principle of distinguishing between session identifier and routing - address and maintaining a mapping between the two. In Mobile IP, the - home address serves as the session identifier whereas the care-of- - address (CoA) takes the role of the routing address. The binding - between these two is maintained at the home agent (mobility anchor). - If packets addressed to the home address of a mobile node can be - continuously delivered to the node, then all sessions using that home - address are unaffected even though the routing address (CoA) changes. + principle of distinguishing between a session identifier and a + routing address and maintaining a mapping between the two. In Mobile + IP, the new IP address of the mobile node after the node has moved is + the routing address, whereas the original IP address before the + mobile node moves serves as the session identifier. The location + management (LM) information is kept by associating the routing + address with the session identifier. Packets addressed to the + session identifier will first route to the original network which re- + directs them using the routing address to deliver to the session. + Re-directing packets this way can result in long routes. An existing + optimization routes directly using the routing address of the host, + and such is a host-based solution. The next two subsections explain centralized and distributed mobility management functions in the network. 3.1. Centralized mobility management - In centralized mobility management, the mapping information between - the session identifier and the locator IP address of a mobile node - (MN) is kept at a single mobility anchor. At the same time, packets - destined to the MN are routed via this anchor. In other words, such + In centralized mobility management, the location information in terms + of a mapping between the session identifier and the routing address + is kept at a single mobility anchor, and packets destined to the + session identifier are routed via this anchor. In other words, such mobility management systems are centralized in both the control plane and the data plane (mobile node IP traffic). Many existing mobility management deployments make use of centralized mobility anchoring in a hierarchical network architecture, as shown - in Figure 1. Examples of such centralized mobility anchors are the - home agent (HA) and local mobility anchor (LMA) in Mobile IPv6 - [RFC6275] and Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213], respectively. Current - cellular networks such as the Third Generation Partnership Project - (3GPP) GPRS networks, CDMA networks, and 3GPP Evolved Packet System - (EPS) networks employ centralized mobility management too. In - particular, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), Serving GPRS - Support Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC) in the 3GPP - GPRS hierarchical network, and the Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW) - and Serving Gateway (S-GW) in the 3GPP EPS network all act as anchors - in a hierarchy. + in Figure 1. Examples are the home agent (HA) and local mobility + anchor (LMA) serving as the anchors for the mobile node (MN) and + Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) in Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] and in Proxy + Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] respectively. Cellular networks such as the + Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) General Packet Radio + System (GPRS) networks and 3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS) networks + employ centralized mobility management too. In the 3GPP GPRS + network, the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), Serving GPRS Support + Node (SGSN) and Radio Network Controller (RNC) constitute a hierarchy + of anchors. In the 3GPP EPS network, the Packet Data Network Gateway + (P-GW) and Serving Gateway (S-GW) constitute another hierarchy of + anchors. 3G GPRS 3GPP EPS MIP/PMIP +------+ +------+ +------+ | GGSN | | P-GW | |HA/LMA| +------+ +------+ +------+ /\ /\ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ @@ -275,22 +273,22 @@ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |RNC| |RNC| |RNC| |RNC| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ Figure 1. Centralized mobility management. 3.2. Distributed mobility management Mobility management functions may also be distributed to multiple networks as shown in Figure 2, so that a mobile node in any of these - networks may be served by a nearby function with appropriate routing/ - mobility management (RM) capability. + networks may be served by a nearby function with appropriate + mobility/routing management (RM) capability. +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | RM | | RM | | RM | | RM | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | +----+ | MN | +----+ Figure 2. Distributed mobility management. @@ -327,201 +325,190 @@ PS1: Non-optimal routes Routing via a centralized anchor often results in non-optimal routes, thereby increasing the end-to-end delay. The problem is manifested, for example, when accessing a nearby server or servers of a Content Delivery Network (CDN), or when receiving locally available IP multicast or sending IP multicast packets. (Existing route optimization is only a host-based solution. On the other hand, localized routing with PMIPv6 [RFC6705] addresses only a part of the problem where both the MN and the - CN are attached to the same MAG, and it is not applicable when - the CN does not behave like an MN.) + correspondent node (CN) are attached to the same MAG, and it is + not applicable when the CN does not behave like an MN.) PS2: Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network architectures such as distribution of content delivery. Mobile networks have generally been evolving towards a flat network. Centralized mobility management, which is non-optimal with a flat network architecture, does not support this evolution. - PS3: Scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility - context maintenance + PS3: Lack of scalability of centralized tunnel management and + mobility context maintenance Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining mobility context for each MN usually requires more concentrated resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability. Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility context maintenance function among different network entities with proper signaling protocol design can avoid increasing the concentrated resources with an increasing number of MNs. PS4: Single point of failure and attack Centralized anchoring designs may be more vulnerable to single points of failures and attacks than a distributed system. The impact of a successful attack on a system with centralized mobility management can be far greater as well. PS5: Unnecessary mobility support to clients that do not need it IP mobility support is usually provided to all MNs. Yet it is not always required, and not every parameter of mobility - context is always used. For example, some applications do not - need a stable IP address during a handover to maintain session - continuity. Sometimes, the entire application session runs - while the terminal does not change the point of attachment. - Besides, some sessions, e.g. SIP-based sessions, can handle - mobility at the application layer and hence do not need IP - mobility support; it is then unnecessary to provide IP mobility - support for such sessions. + context is always used. For example, some applications or + nodes do not need a stable IP address during a handover to + maintain session continuity. Sometimes, the entire application + session runs while the MN does not change the point of + attachment. Besides, some sessions, e.g. SIP-based sessions, + can handle mobility at the application layer and hence do not + need IP mobility support; it is then unnecessary to provide IP + mobility support for such sessions. - PS6: (Related problem) Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer - communication + PS6: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication Wasting resources when mobility signaling (e.g., maintenance of the tunnel, keep alive signaling, etc.) is not turned off for peer-to-peer communication. - PS7: (Related problem) Deployment with multiple mobility solutions + PS7: Deployment with multiple mobility solutions - There are already many variants and extensions of MIP. - Deployment of new mobility management solutions can be - challenging, and debugging difficult, when they co-exist with - solutions already deployed in the field. + There are already many variants and extensions of MIP as well + mobility solutions at other layers. Deployment of new mobility + management solutions can be challenging, and debugging + difficult, when they co-exist with solutions already deployed + in the field. PS8: Duplicate multicast traffic IP multicast distribution over architectures using IP mobility solutions (e.g., [RFC6224]) may lead to convergence of duplicated multicast subscriptions towards the downstream tunnel entity (e.g. MAG in PMIPv6). Concretely, when multicast subscription for individual mobile nodes is coupled with mobility tunnels (e.g. PMIPv6 tunnel), duplicate multicast subscription(s) is prone to be received through different upstream paths. This problem may also exist or be more severe in a distributed mobility environment. 5. Requirements After comparing distributed mobility management against centralized - deployment in Section 3, this section identifies the following - requirements: - -5.1. Distributed processing + deployment in Section 3 and describing the problems in Section 4, + this section identifies the following requirements: REQ1: Distributed processing IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management so that traffic can avoid traversing single mobility anchor far from the optimal route. Motivation: This requirement is motivated by current trends in network evolution: (a) it is cost- and resource-effective to - cache and distribute content by combining distributed mobility - anchors with caching systems (e.g., CDN); (b) the - significantly larger number of mobile nodes and flows call for - improved scalability; (c) single points of failure are avoided - in a distributed system; (d) threats against centrally - deployed anchors, e.g., home agent and local mobility anchor, - are mitigated in a distributed system. + cache contents, and the caching (e.g., CDN) servers are + distributed so that each user in any location can be close to + one of the servers; (b) the significantly larger number of + mobile nodes and flows call for improved scalability; (c) + single points of failure are avoided in a distributed system; + (d) threats against centrally deployed anchors, e.g., home + agent and local mobility anchor, are mitigated in a + distributed system. This requirement addresses the problems PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 described in Section 4. -5.2. Transparency to Upper Layers when needed - - REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers when needed + REQ2: Bypassable network-layer mobility support - DMM solutions MUST provide transparent mobility support above - the IP layer when needed. Such transparency is needed, for - example, when, upon change of point of attachment to the - network, an application flow cannot cope with a change in the - IP address. However, it is not always necessary to maintain a - stable home IP address or prefix for every application or at - all times for a mobile node. + DMM solutions MUST enable network-layer mobility but it MUST + be possible to not use it. Mobility support is needed, for + example, when a mobile host moves and an application cannot + cope with a change in the IP address. Mobility support is + also needed, for example, when a mobile router moves together + with a host and an application in the host is interrupted by a + change of IP address of the mobile router. However mobility + support at the network-layer is not always needed; a mobile + node can often be stationary, and mobility support can also be + provided at other layers. It is then not always necessary to + maintain a stable IP address or prefix. Motivation: The motivation of this requirement is to enable more efficient routing and more efficient use of network resources by selecting an IP address or prefix according to whether mobility support is needed and by not maintaining context at the mobility anchor when there is no such need. - This requirement addresses the problem PS5 as well as the related - problem PS6 stated in Section 4. - -5.3. IPv6 deployment + This requirement addresses the problems PS5 and PS6 described in + Section 4. REQ3: IPv6 deployment DMM solutions SHOULD target IPv6 as the primary deployment environment and SHOULD NOT be tailored specifically to support IPv4, in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. Motivation: This requirement conforms to the general orientation of IETF work. DMM deployment is foreseen in mid- to long-term horizon, when IPv6 is expected to be far more common than today. This requirement avoids the unnecessarily complexity in solving the problems in Section 4 for IPv4, which will not be able to use some of the IPv6-specific features. -5.4. Existing mobility protocols - REQ4: Existing mobility protocols - A DMM solution SHOULD first consider reusing and extending - IETF-standardized protocols before specifying new protocols. + A DMM solution MUST first consider reusing and extending IETF- + standardized protocols before specifying new protocols. Motivation: Reuse of existing IETF work is more efficient and less error-prone. This requirement attempts to avoid the need of new protocols development and therefore their potential problems of being time- consuming and error-prone. -5.5. Co-existence - - REQ5: Co-existence with deployed networks and hosts + REQ5: Coexistence with deployed networks and hosts - The DMM solution MUST be able to co-exist with existing - network deployments and end hosts. For example, depending on - the environment in which DMM is deployed, DMM solutions may - need to be compatible with other deployed mobility protocols - or may need to co-exist with a network or mobile hosts/routers - that do not support DMM protocols. The mobile node may also - move between different access networks, where some of them may - support neither DMM nor another mobility protocol. - Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across different - networks, possibly operated as separate administrative - domains, when allowed by the trust relationship between them. + The DMM solution may require loose, tight or no integration + into existing mobility protocols and host IP stack. + Regardless of the integration level, the DMM solution MUST be + able to coexist with existing network deployments, end hosts + and routers that may or may not implement existing mobility + protocols. Furthermore, a DMM solution SHOULD work across + different networks, possibly operated as separate + administrative domains, when allowed by the trust relationship + between them. Motivation: (a) to preserve backwards compatibility so that existing networks and hosts are not affected and continue to function as usual, and (b) enable inter-domain operation if desired. - This requirement addresses the related problem PS7 described in - Section 4. - -5.6. Security considerations + This requirement addresses the problem PS7 described in Section 4. REQ6: Security considerations - A DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security risks or - amplify existing security risks against which the existing - security mechanisms/protocols cannot offer sufficient - protection. + A DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security risks, or + amplify existing security risks, that cannot be mitigated by + existing security mechanisms or protocols. Motivation: Various attacks such as impersonation, denial of service, man-in-the-middle attacks, and so on, may be launched in a DMM deployment. For instance, an illegitimate node may attempt to access a network providing DMM. Another example is that a malicious node can forge a number of signaling messages thus redirecting traffic from its legitimate path. Consequently, the specific node is under a denial of service attack, whereas other nodes do not receive their traffic. Accordingly, security mechanisms/protocols providing access @@ -529,21 +516,20 @@ confidentiality, etc. can be used to protect the DMM entities as they are already used to protect against existing networks and existing mobility protocols defined in IETF. This requirement prevents a DMM solution from introducing uncontrollable problems of potentially insecure mobility management protocols which make deployment infeasible because platforms conforming to the protocols are at risk for data loss and numerous other dangers, including financial harm to the users. -5.7. Multicast REQ7: Multicast considerations DMM SHOULD enable multicast solutions to be developed to avoid network inefficiency in multicast traffic delivery. Motivation: Existing multicast deployment have been introduced after completing the design of the reference mobility protocol, often leading to network inefficiency and non- optimal routing for the multicast traffic. Instead DMM should consider multicast early so that the multicast solutions can @@ -722,30 +708,30 @@ Broadcom Communications Porkkalankatu 24, FIN-00180 Helsinki, Finland Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com - Charles E. Perkins Huawei Technologies Email: charliep@computer.org - Melia Telemaco Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs - Email: telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com + Email: telemaco.melia@googlemail.com - Elena Demaria Telecom Italia via G. Reiss Romoli, 274, TORINO, 10148, Italy Email: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it - Jong-Hyouk Lee - Sangmyung University - Email: hurryon@gmail.com + Sangmyung University, Korea + Email: jonghyouk@smu.ac.kr - Kostas Pentikousis EICT GmbH Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de - Tricci So ZTE Email: tso@zteusa.com - Carlos J. Bernardos @@ -799,33 +785,33 @@ - Alexandru Petrescu Email: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com - Georgios Karagiannis University of Twente Email: g.karagiannis@utwente.nl - Julien Laganier Juniper - jlaganier@juniper.net + julien.ietf@gmail.com - Wassim Michel Haddad Ericsson - Wassam.Haddad@ericsson.com + Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com - Dirk von Hugo Deutsche Telekom Laboratories Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de - Ahmad Muhanna Award Solutions - amuhanna@awardsolutions.com + asmuhanna@yahoo.com - Byoung-Jo Kim ATT Labs macsbug@research.att.com - Hassan Ali-Ahmad Orange hassan.aliahmad@orange.com - Alper Yegin