On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stig Venaas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM,<[email protected]> wrote: >>>
>> So you are saying that this draft does not correspond to >> Multicast extensions for DS-Lite? > > > I sent a separate review, but anyway, it is not an extension to > DS-Lite as I see it. It is a completely generic approach for > tunneling v6 through v4. It can certainly be deployed in DS-Lite > scenarios, but it is much more generic. I would like the title and > the text to reflect that. So it means that this draft does not correspond to Softwire charter item and we discover this quite late in the process. My recommendation to the chairs is to read and double check the draft before making an adoption call, especially if there is choice. As I mentioned in my mboned mail, in multicast transition I think the right approach is to agree to the fact that most of the host's communication will be unicast. For unicast, v4-v6 transition has already been well analyzed and several protocols have been specified. Multicast extensions to those protocols are what we need. Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
