Hi Stig,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
On 7/14/2012 Saturday 4:57 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
On 7/12/2012 8:20 PM, Jacni Qin wrote:
Hi all,
Please see below the text updated according to the comments received.
Many thanks to Stig, Simon, Shailesh, and others for their review and
discussions.
On 7/12/2012 8:20 PM, Jacni Qin wrote:
Hi all,
Please see below the text updated according to the comments received.
Many thanks to Stig, Simon, Shailesh, and others for their review and
discussions.
Thanks, this addresses at least some of my concerns.
Let me try to list the issues I
Hi all,
Please see below the text updated according to the comments received.
Many thanks to Stig, Simon, Shailesh, and others for their review and
discussions.
4.2. Multicast Distribution Tree Computation
...
The mAFTR MUST advertise
Re-,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments, we'll update it accordingly.
Cheers,
Jacni
On 6/28/2012 Thursday 12:42 AM, Shailesh Suman wrote:
Hi Lee,
Thanks for your reply. It clarifies some of my queries now. Hope
to see the revison tries to address these points.
Regards..
Hi Lee,
Thanks for your reply. It clarifies some of my queries now. Hope
to see the revison tries to address these points.
Regards..
-Shailesh
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Hi Shailesh,
Thanks very much of reviewing the draft. Please read
Hi All,
I see few points of this draft need to be addressed to address
complete solution.
1). Section 6.2 mentions the mB4 must drop non-matching (mPrefix64 and
uPrefix64) packets silently. There can be scenarios, where some of LAN
Multicast receivers are supporting native IPv6. How will
Hi Shailesh,
Thanks very much of reviewing the draft. Please read comments inline:
On 6/26/12 8:07 AM, Shailesh Suman sumanshail...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I see few points of this draft need to be addressed to address
complete solution.
1). Section 6.2 mentions the mB4 must drop
Folks,
We have published revised version of our draft on multicast extensions
to DS-Lite at
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemulticast-01.txt
We think that this draft should be part of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast.
Regards,
Behcet
this clarifies your concern.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Behcet Sarikaya
Envoyé : mercredi 13 juin 2012 00:23
À : Lee, Yiu
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire
; Yong Cui
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
Hi Med,
Thanks for your kind reply. I was talking about
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslite6rdmul
ticast-00
(which is now expired, I'll explain why below)
Profiting the occasion, let me
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
Venaas; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
Hi Med,
I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else.
Instead this draft should be revised to make it
Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
Hi Med,
I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else.
Instead this draft should be revised to make it
Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter.
There is enough time to do it.
Regards
-Message d'origine-
De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 17:35
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Wojciech Dec; Stig Venaas; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
Hi Med
]
Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 20:20
À : Stig Venaas
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stig Venaas
s...@venaas.com wrote:
On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet
,
Med
De : Wojciech Dec [mailto:wdec.i...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 09:57
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : sarik...@ieee.org; Stig Venaas; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
Re-,
On 6/5/2012 Tuesday 9:09 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2012-06-04 22:13, Jacni Qin wrote:
Section 6.1 introduces IGMP/MLD translation, but I fear it is very
underspecified. Our own effort at specifying IGMP/MLD translation is
in draft-perreault-mboned-igmp-mld-translation. I feel that
...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 20:20
À : Stig Venaas
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote:
On 6/7/2012 10:08
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : sarik...@ieee.org; Stig Venaas; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
Hello Med,
there is no dependency here on ds-lite, ie This has all the hallmarks of a
standalone solution, which
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote:
On 6/8/2012 8:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Med,
I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else.
Instead this draft should be revised to make it
Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter.
Perreault
Envoyé : lundi 28 mai 2012 16:11
À : Yong Cui
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
On 2012-05-27 10:34, Yong Cui wrote:
This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02.
Section 6.1 introduces IGMP/MLD
On 2012-06-07 08:51, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Among the use cases
of high priority identified in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-00#section-3.6,
the IGMP/MLD IWF is only required for the use case described in
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast.
The
Re-,
See inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 15:47
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Woj,
DS-Lite terminology is used in the sense that an IPv4 receiver is delivered
(IPv4) multicast content (from an IPv4 source) over an IPv6 network.
The generic use case as described in
Here are my last call comments. I think substantial changes are
needed to the draft.
I understand that this draft is focusing on dslite. But it appears that
it is a generic solution. As it says in the draft:
An IPv4 receiver accesses IPv4 multicast contents over an IPv6-
only
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote:
On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM,mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
So you are saying that this draft does not correspond to
Multicast extensions for DS-Lite?
I sent a
+1
The IGMP/MLD translation is the key piece of this draft and needs to be
thorough.
In addition a general observation: This draft appears to have very little
in common with DS-Lite (nothing except use of IPinIP on my reading), and
using that reference and the AFTR terms is confusing. The fact
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
The IGMP/MLD translation is the key piece of this draft and needs to be
thorough.
In addition a general observation: This draft appears to have very little in
common with DS-Lite (nothing except use of IPinIP on my
On 2012-06-04 22:13, Jacni Qin wrote:
Section 6.1 introduces IGMP/MLD translation, but I fear it is very
underspecified. Our own effort at specifying IGMP/MLD translation is
in draft-perreault-mboned-igmp-mld-translation. I feel that DS-Lite
multicast would be better served by referencing our
hi simon,
Sorry for the late reply, please see below,
On 5/28/2012 Monday 10:11 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2012-05-27 10:34, Yong Cui wrote:
This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02.
Section 6.1 introduces IGMP/MLD translation, but I fear it is very
On 2012-05-27 10:34, Yong Cui wrote:
This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02.
Section 6.1 introduces IGMP/MLD translation, but I fear it is very
underspecified. Our own effort at specifying IGMP/MLD translation is in
draft-perreault-mboned-igmp-mld-translation. I
Hi folks,
This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast/
As usual, please send editorial comments to the authors and
substantive comments to the mailing list.
This wg last call will end on June 10 at 12pm
35 matches
Mail list logo
