Hi Med, Thanks for your kind reply. I was talking about
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslite6rdmulticast-00 (which is now expired, I'll explain why below) Profiting the occasion, let me clarify that the chairs, Alain initially asked the two drafts to be merged. We favored the merger but Med was against. draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 presents a generic v4 to v6 multicast translation technique and as has been indicated such an approach has nothing to do with DS-Lite, i.e. DS-Lite does not translate unicast v4 packets into unicast v6 packets. I hope this is well understood. As such, draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 is suitable for NAT64, (remind you that there is already a multicast solution draft for NAT64). Regards, Behcet On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:15 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > I failed to understand the point you are trying to make. > > The current situations is: > > * this document provides multicast extension to deliver multicast to DS-Lite > serviced customers > * we rely on multicast capabilities, as such no AMT-like considerations are > included > * the proposed solution is generic and can be deployed in any 4-6-4 use case > > What should be revised? > > Thanks for your help. > > Cheers, > Med > >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] >>Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 17:35 >>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >>Cc : Wojciech Dec; Stig Venaas; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui >>Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on >>draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 >> >>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. >> >>Regards, >> >>Behcet >> >>On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:43 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >>> 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:wdec.i...@gmail.com] >>> Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 09:57 >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >>> Cc : sarik...@ieee.org; Stig Venaas; softwires@ietf.org; 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, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> 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: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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
