I think the first use case, delivering multicast over DS-lite in an IPv6 multicast enabled network, is more valuable.
Mingwei 2011/7/28 Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> > Ah. Ok :-) English isn't my first language. Please bear with me :-p > > On 7/28/11 10:13 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >Hi Yiu, > > > >It was a joke. > > > >We need some sense of humor in IETF. > > > >I also support > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 > > > >Behcet > > > >> Dear Behcat, > >> > >> Can you elaborate it a little more? I don¹t quite follow what makes one > >> correct from two wrongs. What is the technical argument of this > >>statement? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Yiu > >> > >> On 7/28/11 9:45 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >>Hi Yiu,all, > >> >> > >> >>I see the first use case worth good value to work on, as the reason > >>I > >> >>stated > >> >>during meeting: operators would happy with it because otherwise (the > >> >>second > >> >>case), means moving AFTR lower location, which ends up with more > >>CAPEX. > >> >> > >> > > >> >This is not correct. > >> >Please take a look at Broadband Forum document WT-242 on IPv6 > >>migration > >> >(or read > >> >my previous mail :-) ). > >> >You can not make one correct from two wrongs. > >> > > >> >Regards, > >> > > >> >Behcet > >> > > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
