On 6/8/2012 10:58 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Stig Venaas<s...@venaas.com> wrote:
On 6/8/2012 8:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Med,
I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else.
Instead this draft should be revised to make it
Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter.
There is enough time to do it.
As this draft shows though, one can provide multicast in a DS-Lite
environment in an entirely generic way. I think that is great. It's
much better to have a general solution.
But this means the draft should be modified to reflect that. It is
great to have a draft describing this.
A "general" solution using translation won't simply cut it for DS-Lite
which is a tunneling protocol.
No matter how hard you try.
This draft specifies a general solution using tunneling, and it looks
like a good solution to me. It also seems this general solution is
what at least the authors think is suitable in a DS-Lite environment.
This is all good. My main issue is that even though the draft specifies
a general solution, the draft pretends it is a DS-Lite specific
solution.
Stig
Behcet
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
