Hi Yiu, On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > Sorry for the late reply. I didn¹t suggest to drop anything. Instead, I > just had a question: If the encapsulation method encapsulated v6 multicast > packets in v4 unicast packets, it might not be the best use of v6 > multicast.
True. But as Suresh mentioned in the meeting, encapsulation is used (I don't want to say widely) especially in mobility multicast protocols, see RFC 6275 and RFC 6224. Also in the solution we are giving the choice of using the translation approach to the implementers which makes better use of IPv6 multicast as you mentioned. I hope that this resolves your concern. Thx, Behcet > > Thanks, > Yiu > > > On 7/24/14, 6:08 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi Yiu, >> >>Can you please clarify your point in today's session? Do you want the >>encapsulation or translation parts to be dropped? >> >>Maybe we can do that but I am not sure if we can say that all IPv4 and >>IPv6 access networks are multicast enabled? >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Behcet > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
