?
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:54 PM
To: Tina TSOU; Jacni Qin
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi Tina
Hi Tina,
Please see inline.
Cheers
Med
De : Tina TSOU [mailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 26 août 2011 04:35
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Jacni Qin
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire
04:31
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Lee, Yiu; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Bonjour Med,
Thank you for your comments.
What Yiu said is not reflected in figure 3. In the current figure, mAFTR can
receive (PIMv6 Join, PIMv6
] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi Tina,
What do you see new here in this scenario? mAFTR is a logical function, it
would perform MLD PIMv4-Join interworking. This has been captured. If a vendor
wants to make mAFTR also a L2 device, it would perform standard MLD snooping
: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi Tina,
What do you see new here in this scenario? mAFTR is a logical function, it
would perform MLD PIMv4-Join interworking. This has been captured. If a vendor
wants to make mAFTR also a L2 device, it would perform standard MLD
] On Behalf
Of mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:11 AM
To: Lee, Yiu; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi Tina,
I agree with Yiu. FYI, we had a discussion between co-authors of the draft
whether we
: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi Tina,
I agree with Yiu. FYI, we had a discussion between co-authors of the draft
whether we maintain
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04#section-8or
remove it.
You can read in that section
: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi all,
In IETF-81, the chairs asked the authors of different drafts on multicast sit
together to discuss and compromise. So we did.
Here are some comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.
Overall: if this is to be a Standards
: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
hi,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Tina TSOU
tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.commailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi all,
Some more comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.
#1
General comment: is there any consideration
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi Tina,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part
de Tina TSOU
Envoyé : mercredi 24 août 2011 04:21
À
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.comwrote:
...
#2
Section 6.2
Translation and encapsulation both uses the same mPrefix64 and uPrefix64,
so mB4 could not determine whether to de-capsulate the packets only based on
mPrefix64 and uPrefix64. Propose to
Hi all,
One more comment on Section 7.4.2.
This document only covers IGMP-MLD and PIMv6-PIMv4 scenarios. We also need to
consider the scenario where it is layer 2 network between mAFTR and mB4. The
architecture is as below:
/ \
| IPv4 network |
\/
tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.commailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 02:11:18 +
To: softwires@ietf.orgmailto:softwires@ietf.org
softwires@ietf.orgmailto:softwires@ietf.org
Subject: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04
Hi all,
One more comment
Thanks for the comments, inline please.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.comwrote:
Hi all,
In IETF-81, the chairs asked the authors of different drafts on multicast
sit together to discuss and compromise. So we did.
Here are some comments on
Hi all,
Some more comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.
#1
General comment: is there any consideration of interaction with unicast
solutions, e.g., potential collocation or reuse of functions? Do we need some
mapping or interaction table of the function elements or tunnels
hi,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.comwrote:
Hi all,
Some more comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.
#1
General comment: is there any consideration of interaction with unicast
solutions, e.g., potential collocation or reuse of functions? Do
hi,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.comwrote:
...
#2
Section 6.2
Translation and encapsulation both uses the same mPrefix64 and uPrefix64,
so mB4 could not determine whether to de-capsulate the packets only based on
mPrefix64 and uPrefix64. Propose to
Hi all,
In IETF-81, the chairs asked the authors of different drafts on multicast sit
together to discuss and compromise. So we did.
Here are some comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.
Overall: if this is to be a Standards Track document, the whole document
has to be reviewed,
18 matches
Mail list logo
