Hi Behcet, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] >Envoyé : vendredi 27 juillet 2012 18:48 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >Cc : softwire issue tracker; >[email protected]; [email protected] >Objet : Re: [softwire] #10: Nothing in common with DS-Lite > >Hi Med, > >My comments below. Please do not take them personal. No offense. >Please, please. > >On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:48 AM, <[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. >> > >These are religious arguments. >Translation multicast integrates well with several IPv6 transition >technologies. MAP-T is one. NAT64 is another, 4rd also. But not MAP-E. >Let's use translation multicast with those technologies. > >No matter what you want to believe, DS-Lite is a tunneling technology. >Why do you think DS-Lite was standardized in Softwires WG? Same thing >with 6rd. >Remember softwire means tunnel. >Translation has only been added to Softwires WG recently after Behave >WG stopped working on it. Med: I failed to get the point you are trying to make. Do you want draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast to cover the translation case also? Let me remind that draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast covers only the encapsulation scheme: IPv4 multicast packets are encapsulated in IPv6 ones. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
