If we r looking for a generic encapsulation for multicast transition, here it is. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-softwire-encapsulated-multicast/
Tina 408-859-4996 On Jun 11, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Stig Venaas" <s...@venaas.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
