> I think definitely we should define the first case, isn't reduce redundant > delivery the original spirit of multicast? Deliver multicast over an IPv6 > multicast disabled network doesn't seem quite persuading, except the legacy > case.
And AMT has been devised to address that very space. :) We should not reinvent another solution for that space. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Peng Wu > Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 10:16 AM > To: Lee, Yiu; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] DS-lite Multicast > > Hi all, > > I think definitely we should define the first case, isn't reduce redundant > delivery the original spirit of multicast? Deliver multicast over an IPv6 > multicast disabled network doesn't seem quite persuading, except the legacy > case. > > So if we need to choose one, then I prefer the first one. Or can we make the > second case a special case in one unified draft? > > >Hi WG, > > > >In today meeting, we presented two drafts on to enable multicast in DS-lite. > I think they target different use cases: > > > >The use case of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-dslite- > multicast-04 is to deliver multicast over DS-lite in an IPv6 multicast enabled > network. > > > >The use case of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire- > dslitemulticast-00 is to deliver multicast over DS-lite in an IPv6 multicast > disabled network. > > > >I think both drafts target different use cases. My question to the WG is: > Should we work on both use cases? If not, which use case the WG should work on > first? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
