Hi
On 7/27/2012 4:48 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com 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.
I think I agree with the above.
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.
This is all I've been asking for. An update to abstract/introduction to
indicate that it is a generic solution. And then say that DS-Lite is one
of the use-cases. You can even say that the solution was developed to
solve the problem for DS-Lite. All I want is to make it clear that it is
a generic solution.
Stig
Cheers,
Med
-----Message d'origine-----
De : softwire issue tracker [mailto:trac+softw...@tools.ietf.org]
Envoyé : vendredi 13 juillet 2012 23:55
À : draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multic...@tools.ietf.org;
sarik...@ieee.org
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
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
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires