Hi Woj, Your comment is valid.
The point I wanted to make is to recall the initial motivation of this draft: solve an issue raised by DS-Lite people. Evidently, the proposed approach can be deployed in any 4-6-4 scenario. This will be reflected in the updated version of the draft. Cheers, Med ________________________________ De : Wojciech Dec [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 09:57 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : [email protected]; Stig Venaas; [email protected]; Yong Cui Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 Hello Med, there is no dependency here on ds-lite, ie This has all the hallmarks of a standalone solution, which will almost certainly be implemented as such, and one that will work with or without ds-lite for unicast. Regards, Woj. On 8 June 2012 07:48, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] >Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 20:20 >À : Stig Venaas >Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; >[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 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 ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 >AM,<[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
