On 6/10/2012 11:15 PM, 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
But not only DS-Lite.
* 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
Agree it is generic, and I think the draft should be revised to reflect
that.
Stig
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
