Med, the point is that the DS-Lite (CGN AFTR) solution is not necessary to be deployed for the multicast solution described here to work. As to how this ended up being charterd in Softwire I don't know and IMO it doesn't make much sense.
Regards, Woj. On 27 July 2012 13:48, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I really don't understand this issue. > It is even misplaced to have this comment at this stage, since this is a > document which has been adopted by the WG and the solution it specifies is > the same as the one reviewed by the WG prior to its adoption (i.e., since > April 2011). > > Anyway, below a tentative to explain the overall rationale: > > DS-Lite model can not be reduced to a CGN/AFTR + tunnel. DS-Lite should be > first seen as an IP connectivity service. This service can be defined as > follows: > > * delivery of IPv4 connectivity over an IPv6-capable network. > * delivery of native IPv6 connectivity > * DS-Lite serviced customers are assigned with IPv6 prefix and no IPv4 > address. > > The unicast portion of the service is defined in RFC6333 and is > implemented using a tunnel + CGN. > > The multicast portion of the service is defined in > draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast. This portion of the service can be > defined as follows: > > * delivery of IPv4 multicast content using native IPv6 multicast > capabilities > * delivery of native IPv6 multicast content > > The solution proposed in draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast is designed > to allow DS-Lite serviced customers be delivered IPv4 multicast services. > > A side note, I agree with Stig and Woj the proposed solution can be > generalized to cover any 4-6-4 scenario. This can be done easily by > updating the draft (abstract and introduction) to reflect the change of > scope of use cases. We didn't had the ambition to define a generic solution > when we wrote this draft, we focused mainly on the DS-Lite context. If > there is no objection from the WG, we can implement that change. > > Cheers, > Med > > >-----Message d'origine----- > >De : softwire issue tracker [mailto:[email protected]] > >Envoyé : vendredi 13 juillet 2012 23:55 > >À : [email protected]; > >[email protected] > >Cc : [email protected] > >Objet : Re: [softwire] #10: Nothing in common with DS-Lite > > > >#10: Nothing in common with DS-Lite > > > >Changes (by sarikaya@.): > > > > * owner: sarikaya@. => draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast@. > > > > > >-- > >-------------------------+------------------------------------- > >------------ > > Reporter: sarikaya@. | Owner: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite- > > Type: defect | multicast@. > > Priority: major | Status: new > >Component: dslite- | Milestone: milestone1 > > multicast | Version: 2.0 > > Severity: In WG Last | Resolution: > > Call | > > Keywords: tunneling | > >-------------------------+------------------------------------- > >------------ > > > >Ticket URL: > ><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/10#comment:1> > >softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
