Hi Stig,
Thanks for you comments and support, please see below inline.
On 6/28/2012 Thursday 4:08 AM, Stig Venaas 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).
As discussed in the previous messages of the thread, our motive is solve
the problems
for those who want multicast in their DS-Lite deployment.
So we limited the scope. Where the DS-Lite is not deployed, it doesn't
apply.
If some pieces of the approach can be reused in the future, to solve the
multicast issues in
other deployments, that'd be good.
While personally, I'd prefer we stay focus on the currently scenario.
Extensions if needed, may be raised respectively for other deployments.
More are detailed in,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-00.
Cheers,
Jacni
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
