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

Hi Brian,

I think that there is a lot of confusion on the mails related to this
tread and some others regarding IPv4 IPv6 multicast work.

The confusion is stemming from the fact that multicast communication
is being abstracted from unicast communication.

I can not imagine any host being involved only in multicast
communication. In fact most of the communication will be in unicast.

For unicast communication, IETF has defined several transition
protocols, mostly in Softwire WG (ds-lite, 6rd, 4rd, etc.).

The right way to look at IPv4 IPv6 multicast is to look at these
unicast transition protocols and then define multicast protocols for
each.

In fact that is what we currently have. For each unicast transition
protocol we have a multicast transition protocol proposed/defined.

There is probably a single other component that is needed is the
address translation component. For this we have
draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format.

However, there has been many objections to
draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format because it is trying to
extend IP addressing architecture.

I do agree to those who say that we do not need to extend the
architecture and hope that a simpler solution can be found.

Please let's not get confused more and concentrate on finding the
right solution.

Regards,

Behcet

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Brian Haberman
<brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>> 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