Re-, May I re-iterate:
* The draft is designed to allow the delivery of multicast services to DS-Lite serviced customers. * The draft proposes multicast extensions and not unicast ones. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] >Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 20:20 >À : Stig Venaas >Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui >Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on >draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 > >On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stig Venaas <s...@venaas.com> wrote: >> On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 >AM,<mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> 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 Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
