Hi Med,
Thanks for posting this new version but I guess it doesn't reflect all
the discussion we had. I suggest to make following modifications.
States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer
premises equipment or host, in order to restrict port numbers within a
dedicated
Peng,
On 11 June 2012 20:38, Peng Wu pengwu@gmail.com wrote:
Woj,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com wrote:
There is basic question regarding this draft, one that has also been
raised
at previous WG meetings: why is it needed?.
It's actually written in
2012/6/12, Ole Trøan otr...@employees.org:
Ok, then we can make this more clear in our document.
States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer
premises equipment or host, in order to restrict IP address or port
number
information into the configured context except that
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mardi 12 juin 2012 11:49
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-02.txt
Well, it is still in the Softwires domain if it tunnels the multicast
data, is it not?
On 12/06/2012 4:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I think that a decision should be made on this draft. If it is going
to present a generic solution it could be fine but then such a draft
does not meet Softwire
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it is still in the Softwires domain if it tunnels the multicast data,
is it not?
It is not the case in the draft currently, check Sections 4.3 6.2.
Behcet
On 12/06/2012 4:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I
Hi Behect,
You confuse me. 4.3 said this:
When the mAFTR receives an IPv4 multicast packet, it will encapsulate
the packet into an IPv6 multicast packet using the IPv4-embedded IPv6
multicast address as the destination address and an IPv4-embedded
IPv6 unicast address as the source
+1
On 6/12/12 4:46 PM, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote:
On 6/12/2012 1:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
I think that a decision should be made on this draft. If it is going
to present a generic solution it could be fine but then such a draft
does not meet Softwire charter item so it can not
As a reader of the document, not co-author any related document, I
believe people who is not involved the whole process (e.g. edit the
documents, design the solutions,etc) couldn't understand the story
behind that. I personally have sincerely heard some people presenting
and evaluating this
