Re-, Did you read draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast?
I have some doubts given your message below. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] >Envoyé : lundi 11 juin 2012 18:08 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >Cc : [email protected]; Yong Cui >Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on >draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 > >Hi Med, > >Thanks for your kind reply. I was talking about > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslite6rdmul >ticast-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, <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] >>>Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 17:35 >>>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >>>Cc : Wojciech Dec; Stig Venaas; [email protected]; 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, ><[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]> 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]] >>>>> >Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 20:20 >>>>> >À : Stig Venaas >>>>> >Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; [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]> wrote: >>>>> >> On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 >>>>> >AM,<[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] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>>> >>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
