IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Review Request for draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D261821F8792 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtNkRZSMsbsy for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301EF21F8783 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 00B8F2DC12E; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:21:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id DA070238055; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:21:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.233.200.25]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:21:09 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:21:08 +0200
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Review Request for draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option
Thread-Index: Ac0SLSr8tWiA8sp1Q3KSsttchfwVDwAiiq6AAA58iqA=
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E288069F8@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E28806652@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <411D32D0-5D15-4784-B1EE-09997940784E@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <411D32D0-5D15-4784-B1EE-09997940784E@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.4.4.135415
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Xiaohong Deng <dxhbupt@gmail.com>, Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review Request for draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:21:12 -0000

Dear Ted,

Yes, we can do.

FYI, we defined these as separate sub-options in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-01 but the authors finally agreed to define it as a single option. We thought it was more simple. A more serious issue is to associate the provisioned U_PREFIX64 with the multicast service and avoid using it for unicast. An example would be a provider deploying NAT64 with a dedicated PREFIX64 (RFC6052) distinct from the one used for IPv4/IPv6 multicast. Having all these pieces of information in one single packet ensures the provisioned information will be used only for multicast services.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
>Envoyé : mercredi 4 avril 2012 18:05
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : dhcwg@ietf.org; Xiaohong Deng; Jacni Qin
>Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Review Request for 
>draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option
>
>Why is this a single option?   It seems like you are conveying 
>three separate pieces of information, not all of which will be 
>populated, so it would be better to have three options, and 
>then the client can request all three, and the server can 
>return the ones that are configured?   Or am I 
>misunderstanding what you are trying to do here?
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email