D. Ooms et al., "Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS," draft-ietf-mpls-mcast-00.txt, Internet Draft, Jan. 2001.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....or different network interface are mapped to the same incoming label. This can be useful to setup alternative partial paths for sections of the LSP that frequently goes down, or for load balancing at critical points in the network. Multicasting protocols can use this for creating multicast LSP tree[30]. 26 The MPLS standard does not define how these multi path mechanisms are used. Therefore, a Micro Policy (MP) based approach is introduced here. A list of labels is assumed to be associated with the FEC entry or the incoming label entry. AMP function must be associated with this entry if more ....

D. Ooms, B. Sales, W. Livens, A. Acharya, F. Griffoul, and F. Ansari, "Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS," draft-ietf-mpls-multicast08. txt, 2002.

....this approach in this paper. For more details refer to [10] The idea of the second approach is to make the two layers completely independent of each other and somehow map IP multicast trees onto corresponding WDM ones. The approaches that will be discussed next use MPLS to do such a mapping [1]. The idea is to construct a WDM multicast tree by mapping an already in place IP multicast tree onto a point to multipoint LSP. Four options are proposed that work under DVMRP PIM DM and MOSPF networks. These approaches assume that forwarding interfaces in a multicast routing table (MRT) can be ....

....in the group membership information. The best triggering mechanism to use depends upon the IP multicast routing protocol supported. In traffic driven triggering, broadcast and prune protocols may lead to very volatile WDM tree structures and high labels consumption in traffic driven triggering [1] . On the other hand, data can be forwarded while an IP multicast tree is constructed (in our protocol a WDM multicast tree is constructed simultaneously) In request driven triggering, a WS controller can react faster upon the sending of a dynamic join leave message by IP. Its main drawback, ....

D. Ooms et al.: Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mplsmulticast -00.txt>, IETF, June 1999.

....information nor is the protocol constrained to any specific WS architecture. Based on the MPLS architecture, the protocol uses MPLS signalling to map a multicast tree constructed by PIM SM onto LSPs that are connected to form an equivalent tree at the WDM layer (the reader is referred to [9] for further information on the support of multicast in MPLS) Due to the heterogeneity of WS architectures and the effects it causes, to request a LSP a WS needs to have information about the capability of each other WS along that LSP. Embedding this information in IP (control) routing messages, ....

D. Ooms et al.: Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mplsmulticast -00.txt>, IETF, June 1999.

....WDM layer, can be constructed. For more details refers to [10] The idea of the second approach is to make the two layers completely independent of each other and somehow map IP multicast trees onto corresponding WDM ones. The approaches that will be discussed next use MPLS to do such a mapping [1]. The idea is to construct a WDM multicast tree by mapping an already in place IP multicast tree onto a point tomultipoint LSP. In [10] four options are discussed that work under DVMRP PIM DM and MOSPF networks. The discussions assume that forwarding interfaces in a multicast routing table (MRT) ....

....in the group membership information. The best triggering mechanism to use depends upon the IP multicast routing protocol supported. In traffic driven triggering, broadcast and prune protocols may lead to very volatile WDM tree structures and high labels consumption in traffic driven triggering [1] 6 . On the other hand, data can be forwarded while an IP multicast tree is constructed (in our protocol a WDMmulticast tree is constructed simultaneously) 5 A datagram is sent up to the IP layer if and only if an appropriate LSP was not found. 6 Actually this is not the case in the ....

D. Ooms et al.: Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-00.txt>, IETF, June 1999.

....this approach in this paper. For more details refer to [10] The idea of the second approach is to make the two layers completely independent of each other and somehow map IP multicast trees onto corresponding WDM ones. The approaches that will be discussed next use MPLS to do such a mapping [1]. The idea is to construct a WDM multicast tree by mapping an already in place IP multicast tree onto a point to multipoint LSP. Four options are proposed that work under DVMRP PIM DM and MOSPF networks. These approaches assume that forwarding interfaces in a multicast routing table (MRT) can be ....

....in the group membership information. The best triggering mechanism to use depends upon the IP multicast routing protocol supported. In traffic driven triggering, broadcast and prune protocols may lead to very volatile WDM tree structures and high labels consumption in traffic driven triggering [1] 8 . On the other hand, data can be forwarded while an IP multicast tree is constructed (in our protocol a WDMmulticast tree is constructed simultaneously) In request driven triggering, a WS controller can react faster upon the sending of a dynamic join leave message by IP. Its main drawback, ....

D. Ooms et al.: Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-00.txt>, IETF, June 1999.

....ordered or independent LSP control. MPLS facilitates the use of explicit routing without requiring that each IP packet carry the explicit route. Explicit routing may be useful to support policy routing and traffic engineering. Recently, IP multicast in MPLS is discussed in several Internet Drafts [2, 9, 12, 13]. Multicast traffic flows that have long duration and high bandwidth (e.g. video streams) are prime candidates to be label switched with multicast LSPs. In general, the creation of an LSP for multicast traffic can be triggered by different events, which can be classified as one of three ....

....Multicast traffic flows that have long duration and high bandwidth (e.g. video streams) are prime candidates to be label switched with multicast LSPs. In general, the creation of an LSP for multicast traffic can be triggered by different events, which can be classified as one of three categories [13], namely, Request Driven, Topology Driven, and Traffic Driven. In Request Driven, each node needs to intercept the sending or receiving of control messages (e.g. multicast routing messages) then set up LSPs. In Topology Driven, each nodes maps a L3 tree, which is available in the Multicast ....

D. Ooms, W. Livens, B. Sales, and M. Ramalho. Framework for IP multicast in MPLS, IETF draft, draftooms -mpls-multicast-01.txt. February 1999.

....There has already been some work on the support of PIM SM for MPLS. 7] suggests a piggybacking methodology to assign and distribute labels for sparse mode trees. The idea is that PIM Join Prune messages are augmented to carry labels. Besides requiring changes to existing PIM message formats, [10] lists several other disadvantages of this piggy backing approach. As we discuss below, it is not possible to always assign a single label, common to all sources, for sparse mode shared trees, and thus the piggybacking approach is not adequate for this case. 11] recognizes the ( G) S, G) ....

Ooms D., Livens W., Sales B., Ramahlo M. Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS, draftooms -mpls-multicast-01.txt, February 1999.

....with mapping PIM sparse mode (PIMSM) and dense mode (PIM DM) to the ATM switching paradigm. In the course of the IthACI project, the NEC IPSOFACTO implementation evolved to LCATM (Label switch Controlled ATM) a prototype that supports native IP multicast over MPLS as proposed by NEC to the IETF [4, 5]. LCATM employs the original IPSOFACTO ideas for multicast traffic, and uses the standard LDP protocol and methods for MPLS unicast traffic. In the rest of this article the enhanced IPSOFACTO prototype is referred to as LCATM. 2.1.2 YALSA YALSA (Yet Another Label Switching Architecture) is a ....

....the first packet of a multicast flow is detected, LCATM sets up point to multipoint ATM VCs according to the corresponding entry in the multicast forwarding cache maintained by the PIM SM routing software. The LCATM prototype supports native IP multicast over MPLS as proposed by NEC to the IETF [4, 5]. Basically this scheme maps the IP tree onto a per source point to multipoint ATM tree, even for the core centered approach like PIM SM, in a traffic driven way. In order to avoid PIM piggybacking two modes of label distribution are advocated: a downstream approach equivalent to the unicast case ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. Ooms, et al, "Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS", draft-ietf-mpls-mcast-00.txt, Internet Draft, June 1999.

No context found.

D. Ooms et al., "Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS," draft-ietf-mpls-mcast-00.txt, Internet Draft, Jan. 2001.

No context found.

D. Ooms, W. Livens, A. Acharya, F. Griffoul, and F. Ansari. Framework for IP multicast in MPLS. IETF Internet draft, January 2002.

No context found.

D. Ooms, W. Livens, A. Acharya, F. Griffoul, and F. Ansari. Framework for IP multicast in MPLS. IETF Internet draft, January 2002.

No context found.

D. Ooms, W. Livens, A. Acharya, F. Griffoul, and F. Ansari. Framework for IP multicast in MPLS. IETF Internet draft, January 2002.

No context found.

D. Ooms, W. Livens, A. Acharya, F. Griffoul, and F. Ansari. Framework for IP multicast in MPLS. IETF Internet draft, January 2002.

No context found.

Ooms D., Livens W., Acharya A., Gri#oul, F., Ansari, F.: Framework for IP multicast in MPLS. IETF Internet draft (2000)

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