Re: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Sat, 26 May 2012 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7ADD21F858A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 May 2012 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 lWW4+Y3ohpf1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 May 2012 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E577321F857F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 May 2012 08:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so1381505lag.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 May 2012 08:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=CzaPMqXB4m9kSHlnYEh33u6pmXi1N+6BubMYLCihuhs=; b=WjUzkbu0+rzj5FIgV3+EYoYQ/h08QMSANstCXdRjMdZRdLqSe3lzaIC8sxrdOdntT7 ZplS2saI55GHHR2Fas5xag9oBf6S+sHtLO9ZwwYwl7ppmtC5u/lRMLw0pBoSgbxV4atu i8rbAYZR03cney+AV1HrIrQEJ+dDx1J39sfP5Zq229N9V+iowau6skKGkh0bZ5j+TuKB qUtRpt65FGxvHYO8YaVlqoDFpNJfYcGlCGNP7Hm2P1DwWCJ5dyugDYa7B+7D+6Oi65/o a3uWwxMOi479l44Eum7ftqf0Mpr7/7Ab+05L1pZBD6/hkqoHdUCxeSigZ6We4+EwFj1k CztQ==
Received: by 10.152.145.1 with SMTP id sq1mr2602666lab.22.1338044792734; Sat, 26 May 2012 08:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-207-112-91-137.tor.primus.ca. [207.112.91.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p2sm4954583lbj.4.2012.05.26.08.06.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 26 May 2012 08:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FC0F16F.9010500@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 11:06:23 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jon Steen <steenjj@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E299468D7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E2B9B5493@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <2CF46F81-B21A-432C-9860-0A0DB4E9818D@gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E2B9B5584@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <5B02E42D-8AD7-4AA9-8DA0-51FE581DA3E4@gmail.com> <CABUgCXcpLDPQu9qmqtuP67T36T=K4mr-Xj_hgnDCkfQg8VdjYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABUgCXcpLDPQu9qmqtuP67T36T=K4mr-Xj_hgnDCkfQg8VdjYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120526-0, 26/05/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org List" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 15:06:34 -0000

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The only requirement is to 
translate the IP headers. The document in question deals with the 
address translation part of that task.

On 25/05/2012 11:09 PM, Jon Steen wrote:
> Sorry all, coming into this late. I have read the RFC and really do not get
> why you would want to do IPv4 to IPv6 multicast translation.  Is there
> really multicast information that is only IPv4 capable? From everything I
> have used multicast for in the past, the data does not care about the IP
> protocol used. What is the reliance of this RFC?
>
> Jon Steen
>
...