+1 The name and references to ds-lite terminology in the draft are misleading and should be revised.
On 27 June 2012 22:08, Stig Venaas <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, here is my take on this. > > > On 6/27/2012 8:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > [...] > > That's a big IF. Not everybody has to do it the same way. >> >> The solution in draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-**multicast-02 >> builds itself something without considering what DS-Lite is doing. >> As I told you before, DS-Lite unicast is a tunneling technology. If >> you don't like it it is not DS-Lite multicast to fix this. >> How many times this should be reminded to you? >> > > draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-**multicast-02 is a generic solution, nothing > specific to DS-Lite, and I've been saying that the draft should be > updated to reflect that. > > However, even though it is generic, I think it is a good solution for > use in DS-Lite deployments (in addition to many other deployments). > > Whether additional solutions are needed for DS-Lite is something the > WG should consider. Maybe it already has, I haven't paid enough > attention. > > Stig > > ______________________________**_________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires> >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
