W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2," RFC 2236, Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov. 1997.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....to support multicast, and there is no need to set up dedicated tunnels for them. This is called native multicast, and the Internet currently has a combination of both. MULTICAST GROUP MEMBERSHIP IP supports dynamic joining and leaving of a group by Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [3]. A user wishing to join a multicast group sends an IGMP join message to its neighboring multicast router. If the multicast router is not a member of the group, it forwards the message upstream until it finds some router or source that is currently subscribing to the group. In a domain, if there ....

....is employed. RM2 Protocol RM2 [15] is a reliable multicast protocol that can be used for both wired and wireless environments. Furthermore, RM2 guarantees sequential packet delivery with no packet loss to all its multicast members. RM2 relies on the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [3] to manage group membership, and on the IETF s Mobile IP to support user mobility through a CoA. RM2 is a hierarchical protocol that divides a multicast tree into subtrees where subcasting within these smaller regions is applied using a tree of retransmission servers (RSs) with each RS having a ....

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2," Internet draft, Apr. 1996.

....the proper IP Multicast address in the range 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255. IP Multicast receivers need to join the IP Multicast group they want to receive. To inform their local attached multicast enabled router which groups it is interested on, a host uses the Internet Group Management Protocol[4] (IGMP) Routers will conspire to deliver IP Multicast traffic from senders to receivers. For this task to be acomplished, routers will use IP Multicast routing protocols to interact between them. These new multicast routing equipments, act like a normal router (in fact most of the routers in ....

....2. 1 IGMP extensions for IP Multicast Sender and Receiver Authentcation In August 1998, Norihiro Ishikawa et al. proposed an Internet Draft called IGMP Extension for Authentication of IP Multicast Senders and Receivers[8] This draft, proposed (as its name suggests) some additions to the IGMPv2[4] protocol for preventing unauthorized users from sending and receiving IP Multicast datagrams. The proposed schema met the following requirements: It allowed for IP Multicast sender authentication. It allowed for IP Multicast receiver authentication. The authentication mechanism was ....

W. Fenner. "Internet Group Management Protocol. Version 2". RFC 2236. November 1997.

....IP multicast is also known as Any Source Multicast (ASM) since any information source, even outside a group, can send data to a multicast group without any control mechanism i.e. in the current service model group management is not stringent enough to control both senders and receivers. IGMPv2 [10] allows group members to join or leave a session but there are no control mechanisms to avoid receiving data from particular sources or prevent receivers from receiving sensitive information. It is common belief that the above characteristics have somehow prevented the successful deployment of IP ....

W. Fenner, "Internet Group management Protocol, version 2", RFC 2236, Nov. 1997

....in RM2 (Reliable Mobile Multicast) 16] RM2 is a reliable multicast protocol to be used on both wired and wireless environments. Furthermore, RM2 guaranties sequential packet delivery with no packet loss to all its multicast members. RM2 relies on the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [13] to manage group membership, and on the IETF s Mobile IP [14] to support user mobility through a care of address (temporary IP address) RM2 is a hierarchical protocol. It divides a multicast tree into sub trees where subcasting within these smaller regions is applied using a tree of ....

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", Internet Draft, April 1996.

....routing protocol and ATM fast switching which maps IP multicast flows into ATM switches without ATMARP, signaling mechanism and multicast address resolution server (MARS) I. Introduction Routers that support IP multicast routing usually executes Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) 1][2] and at least one multicast routing protocol such as Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) 3] Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) 4] or Multicast Open Shortest Path First (MOSPF) 5] SIMA uses IGMP and DVMRP to realize IP multicast routing protocol and multicast traffic forwarding ....

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC-2236, Nov. 1997.

....of the search. The requirements on the routers are: All routers should run an instance of our oriented multicasting protocol and some of them an instance of our NASP protocol. Routers may declare hosting a service on behalf of a host being on its local network (in a IGMP like mechanism [17]) This is not defined yet. Each router should enable the oriented multicasting protocol to use its unicast routing table. In this context, we also ensure that the OMP and NASP protocols have the following properties: Dynamic: the NASP protocol is executed upon request so the information ....

William Fenner, "Internet group management protocol version 2," Request For Comments 2236, Internet Engineering Task Force, November 1997.

....of taking part in multicast communications is quite straightforward. When they wish to send multicast traffic they simply use a class D address as a destination and send the datagrams. When they are interested in receiving multicast traffic, they use the Internet Group Management Protocol IGMP[5] as a request to their First Hop Multicast Router (FHMR) This simple operation may become quite complex, however, when dealing with an ad hoc fringe attached to a fixed network: 1. IGMP uses IP datagrams with a time to live (TTL) of one hop for the communication between hosts and routers. Thus, ....

Fenner, W.: "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2". RFC 2236, November 1997.

....it sends the request to the local multicast router. The local multicast router makes an entry for this group (if it does not exist already) and propagates the information to other multicast routers to establish the multicast routes. Multicast routers use Internet Group Multicast Protocol (IGMP) [28] to gather member information for the multicast groups [2] However, all routers in the Internet are not multicast capable. Solution is to use IPencapsulation tunnels such hosts, as used in the MBONE. The multicast router at the source end of the tunnel encapsulates the datagram and forwards it. ....

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", Internet Request for Comment 2236, November 1997.

....200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Throughput (kbps) Levels Time (sec) BW Levels (b) 3 activated paths Fig. 5. CIFL dynamics in the presence of multiple paths E. Impact of the IGMP leave latency The IGMP protocol [15] is used between a router and the hosts on its attached LANs to learn multicast group membership information from the end stations. This information can then be used by the multicast routing protocol to perform updates of the multicast tree pruning or grafting so that only group members ....

W. Fenner, "Internet group management protocol, version 2," RFC 2236, Xeroc Parc, November 1997.

....subscribed layer is dropped immediately. Obviously, deploying a RED queue in the bottleneck router benefits the RLM protocol by providing early congestion indication before the queue is saturated. However, the router does not immediately stop forwarding the dropped layer when it receives an IGMP [6] leave request from the receiver. The router must first ensure that the layer is not subscribed by other receivers through a query timeout mechanism before executing the leave request. The resulting multicast leave latency can be long. As a result, the benefit of providing early congestion signals ....

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2236, IETF, Nov. 1997

No context found.

Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2," RFC 2236, Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov. 1997.

No context found.

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2," RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2," Internet RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

W . Fenner, "Internet G roup Management Protocol, version 2," Nov. 1997, RFC 2236.

No context found.

. Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2," IETF RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

W. Fenner, "Internet group management protocol, version 2." Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

W. Fenner, "Internet group management protocol, version 2," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

Fenner, B., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

No context found.

W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2", RFC 1112, Nov. 1997.

No context found.

W. Fenner, "Internet group management protocol, version 2," Nov. 1997, RFC2236.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC