Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-09-07 Thread Tina TSOU
+0800 To: Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.commailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com Cc: softwires@ietf.orgmailto:softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.orgmailto:softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 hi, On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:32

Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-09-07 Thread Tina TSOU
: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 Hi Tina, I can't understand the two issues. (1) Why the multicast path must be consistent with unicast path? All PIM cares is to pass RPF check. If an operator decides to do traffic engineering on the multicast path

Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-08-29 Thread Tina TSOU
: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 hi, On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.commailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: Dear Jacni, Just after reading RFC 1981, I think fragmentation of IPv6 is needed. In section 5.1, it says

Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-08-28 Thread Lee, Yiu
...@huawei.commailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com Cc: softwires@ietf.orgmailto:softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.orgmailto:softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 hi, On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout

Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-08-26 Thread Lee, Yiu
Hi Tina, Sure can but IPv6 MTU discovery like IPv4 MTU discovery, it is unreliable. We can list it as an option but readers should notice this may not work in all cases. Regards, Yiu On 8/25/11 10:36 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: Hi all, In section 6.3, To avoid

Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-08-26 Thread Tina TSOU
://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html From: Jacni Qin [mailto:jac...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:41 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 Hi, On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Tina TSOU

Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-08-26 Thread Jacni Qin
hi, On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.comwrote: Dear Jacni, Just after reading RFC 1981, I think fragmentation of IPv6 is needed. In section 5.1, it says, “It is possible that a packetization layer, perhaps a UDP application outside the kernel, is

[Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-08-25 Thread Tina TSOU
Hi all, In section 6.3, To avoid fragmentation, a service provider may increase the MTU size by 40 bytes on the IPv6 network or mAFTR and mB4 may use IPv6 Path MTU discovery. How to use IPv6 Path MTU discovery to avoid fragmentation? Best Regards, Tina TSOU

Re: [Softwires] Comments on section 6.3 of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04

2011-08-25 Thread Jacni Qin
Hi, On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.comwrote: Hi all, In section 6.3, To avoid fragmentation, a service provider may increase the MTU size by 40 bytes on the IPv6 network or mAFTR and mB4 may use IPv6 Path MTU discovery. How to use IPv6 Path MTU