Good feed back. We started to address dslite and like what you said this could be more generic then just dslite. I will talk to the authors and see what we should do.
Thanks again! On 3/23/12 1:02 PM, "Stig Venaas" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 3/22/2012 7:29 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote: >> Hi Stig, >> >> DS-Lite was designed to deliver v4 unicast packets over v6-only network >>to >> v4 host. However when we started thinking about how to deliver multicast >> packets in the same network setup, we will have to tunnel all multicast >> packets over tunnels. This is very inefficient to use of AFTR. This is >>the >> motivation of dslite-multicast draft. However, you are absolutely right. >> This is a solution for tunneling IPv4 multicast through an IPv6-only >> network. > >I agree that double tunneling is a non-starter, so the draft seems to do >the right thing. But since we seem to agree it is a more general >solution, why not change the title and the text to make it more >generic? You can still say that one of the use-cases is to provide IPv4 >multicast for DS-Lite deployments. > >Stig > >> >> B.R., >> Yiu >> >> On 3/20/12 4:47 PM, "Stig Venaas"<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm a little bit puzzled by how this document talks about DS-Lite. >>> Isn't this an entirely generic solution for tunneling IPv4 multicast >>> through an IPv6-only network? >>> >>> Stig >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
