RE: [MBONED] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01

Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Fri, 11 May 2012 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.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 5FC3E21F85D5; Thu, 10 May 2012 17:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.484
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mmSj-cNTUGlE; Thu, 10 May 2012 17:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EEC21F8540; Thu, 10 May 2012 17:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AFT93314; Thu, 10 May 2012 20:04:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 10 May 2012 17:01:53 -0700
Received: from dfweml513-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.80]) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 10 May 2012 17:01:54 -0700
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
Subject: RE: [MBONED] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01
Thread-Topic: [MBONED] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01
Thread-Index: AQHNLvGKIAZQ60ycT0KRymA2IFYsKpbEKgCw
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 00:01:53 +0000
Message-ID: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80D37725C@dfweml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <CBD0A398.20BF2%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <4FAC02D9.1050301@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FAC02D9.1050301@innovationslab.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.245.24]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 May 2012 02:25:57 -0700
Cc: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format.all@tools.ietf.org>
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: Fri, 11 May 2012 00:04:09 -0000

Tina


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mboned-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Brian Haberman
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: Lee, Yiu
> Cc: 6man@ietf.org; apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols;
> draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format.all@tools.ietf.org; The IESG;
> mboned@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-
> address-format-01
> 
> Hi Yiu,
>       Let me ask a few questions...
> 
> On 5/9/12 10:52 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > Thanks very much for reviewing the document. I just want to add a point
> to
> > your question about how applications decide when to use this multicast
> > address format. In fact, they don't. Imagine a use case where a legacy
> > IPv4 IP-TV receiver (an app) wants to join a channel which is
> broadcasted
> > in IPv6. The app will continue to send the igmp-join (say 224.1.2.3).
> 
> How does the IPv4 IP-TV know to join 224.1.2.3?
> 
> How is 224.1.2.3 advertised to the IPv4 IP-TV clients if the content is
> generated by an IPv6 source?  Does the source need to be configured to
> use one of these IPv4-in-IPv6 multicast addresses?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition/
Hope it helps.
> 
> > There will be a function in the network which is statically configured
> > that when it receives a igmp-join, it would covert to a corresponding
> > mld-join. The IPv6 address in the join message will follow what is
> > described in this draft. This Adaptive Function is transparent to the
> > application and managed by the network.
> 
> Are you limiting this approach to only mapping at the IGMP/MLD protocols?
> 
> How does your Adaptive Function know which IPv6 multicast prefix to use
> when mapping the IPv4 multicast address in the IGMP Report message to MLD?
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned