Dear Woj, all,
Sorry, my mail box's filter function got some problems, so I missed most
of the discussions.
I echo Med's comments, it's been stated cleared as below, the scope and
the reason why we use that title, thanks!
Cheers,
Jacni
On 6/8/2012 Friday 4:43 PM, [email protected] 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:[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
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
