Qiong,
If public 4over6 is one extreme case of MAP, in which one subscriber
represents one MAP domain, then should we also say that DS-Lite is another
extreme case of MAP, where one application (session) represents one MAP
domain ?
a DS-lite AFTR could be represented by the combination
Hi Simon,
We tried in this document to avoid as much as possible including implementation
details but instead we focused on the external behaviour of the interworking
functions. Let me recall there are already available implementations based on
the specification of
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
Med,
From protocol level, the difference between public 4over6 and
lightweight 4over6(b4-translated-ds-lite) lies in port-set support.
The extra efforts of lw 4over6 are as follows: (1) port set support in
DHCP provisioning; (2) NAT on the initiator side.(whose address pool
is not a full address
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
Qiong, all,
Le 2012-06-07 à 16:23, Qiong a écrit :
Hi Ole,
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Ole Trøan otr...@employees.org wrote:
I think we should still keep the initial feature of these solutions.
all the proposed solutions, including DS-lite shares a large set of
commonalities.
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
Hi Peng,
I vote for having one single document which covers both shared and full IPv4
address.
If you start for instance from draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, what
is needed is to add one sentence to say a full IPv4 address can be provisioned.
Does this make
10 matches
Mail list logo
