[MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-02
Alain Durand <adurand@juniper.net> Fri, 28 June 2013 21:54 UTC
Return-Path: <adurand@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8852C21F9D19 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 LUHG5sdWSPG9 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db8outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db8lp0184.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567ED21F9CF2 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail192-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.242) by DB8EHSOBE037.bigfish.com (10.174.4.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:53 +0000
Received: from mail192-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail192-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F88AC02F5 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.51; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: 0
X-BigFish: VPS0(zzc85fhzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz18c673h8275bhz2fh2a8h683h839hbe3hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1ad9h1b0ah1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail192-db8: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.51; envelope-from=adurand@juniper.net; helo=P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ; -HQ.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail192-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail192-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 1372456429766492_28022; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB8EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.225]) by mail192-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C58400046 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (66.129.224.51) by DB8EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (10.174.4.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:49 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:53:47 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:53:46 -0700
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.188) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:57:56 -0700
Received: from mail70-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.229) by CO1EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.243.66.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:45 +0000
Received: from mail70-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail70-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C3B240272 for <mboned@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail70-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail70-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1372456422248761_11282; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.250]) by mail70-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314B24C004D for <mboned@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CO1EHSMHS015.bigfish.com (10.243.66.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:42 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0510MB386.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.77]) by BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.100.38]) with mapi id 14.16.0324.000; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:35 +0000
From: Alain Durand <adurand@juniper.net>
To: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-02
Thread-Index: AQHOdEnwmm5PwAzUkkKjRu27N+iNfw==
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:53:35 +0000
Message-ID: <A7AA8F6D-4AB1-400A-A27B-6F04A26A08EA@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.100.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A7AA8F6D4AB1400AA27B6F04A26A08EAjunipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Subject: [MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-02
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:54:18 -0000
Dear wg, Here are comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-02 Alain. 1. Introduction The rarefaction of global IPv4 addresses may indeed affect the multicast delivery of IPv4-formatted contents to IPv4 receivers. For example, the observed evolution of ADSL broadband access infrastructures from a service-specific, multi-PVC (Permanent Virtual Circuit) scheme towards a "service-agnostic", single PVC scheme, assumes the allocation of a globally unique IPv4 address on the WAN (Wide Area Network) interface of the CPE (Customer Premises Equipment), or to a mobile terminal), whatever the number and the nature of the services the customer has subscribed to. ==> In many cases, multicast is used solely for IP-TV class solutions and its scope is limited to the service provider network. Hence, global IPv4 addresses on the CPE are not necessary, private IPv4 addresses can be used to deliver this service. Likewise, the global IPv4 address depletion encourages the development of IPv6 receivers while contents may very well remain IPv4-formatted ==> I do not understand what IPv4 formatted means. Does it mean sourced by an IPv4-only application? If so, say it. o The current design of some multicast-based services like TV broadcasting often relies upon the use of a private IPv4 addressing scheme because of a walled garden approach. Privately- addressed IGMP [RFC2236][RFC3376] traffic sent by IPv4 receivers is generally forwarded over a specific (e.g., "IPTV") PVC towards an IGMP Querier located in the access infrastructure, e.g., in some deployments it is hosted by a BRAS (BRoadband Access Server) device that is the PPP (Point-to-Point Protocol) session endpoint and which may also act as a PIM DR (Protocol Independent Multicast Designated Router)[RFC4601]. This design does not suffer from global IPv4 address depletion by definition (since multicast traffic relies upon the use of a private IPv4 addressing scheme), but it is inconsistent with migrating the access infrastructure towards a publicly-addressed single PVC design scheme. ==> This is somehow echoing the point I made earlier: technically, you can do this with private IPv4 addresses. If you choose not too for other reasons, this is another story. So this all section should be rewritten to explain that the problem statement ONLY applies to cases where the ISP has decided for whatever reasons to NOT deploy private IPv4 addresses. o Likewise, other deployments (e.g., cable operators' environments) rely upon the public CPE's address for multicast delivery and will therefore suffer from IPv4 address depletion ==> I don't understand this statement. ==> KEY POINT: the underlying assumption in that introduction is that the access network will be IPv6-only. I'm OK with that assumption, but it needs to be stated clearly as there are other ways to deal with IPv4 address exhaustion (for example private IPv4 + CGN, with or without IPv6), for which the rest of document may or may not apply. 2.2. Service Requirements o Optimize bandwidth. Contents should not be multicast twice (i.e., using both versions of IP) to optimize bandwidth usage. Injecting multicast content using both IPv4 and IPv6 raises some dimensioning issues that should be carefully evaluated by service providers during network planning operations. For instance, if only few IPv6-enabled receivers are in use, it can be more convenient to convey multicast traffic over IPv4 rather than doubling the consumed resources for few users. IPv4/IPv6 co- existence solutions should be designed to optimize network resource utilization. ==> CRITICAL: If I follow the logic here and I make the assumption that IPv4-only receivers will NEVER go away, them we are stuck forever using IPv4 multicast on the last mile!!! This is a VERY serious issue here, and I consider it a show stopper, unless there is a way to completely segregate CPEs that are multicast IPv6 capable and put them into a completely different infrastructure than those who are not. Even if you were to use a single vlan per subscriber, can you guarantee that you know exactly if that subscriber CPE is multicast IPv6 capable or not? Maybe you can in some environments and not in others. Further more, if you have a mix of multicast v6 subscriber and multicast v4 subscriber, what do you want to use as a protocol on the edge network? Are you OK to double the bandwidth there or not? This is the CORE issue the document should expand on, explaining when and where it is OK to send both v4 multicast and v6 multicast and where it is not. Text like "content should not be multicast twice" is nice and well, but feels a bit like hand waving.
- [MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast… Alain Durand
- Re: [MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-m… christian.jacquenet
- Re: [MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-m… N.Leymann
- Re: [MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-m… Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-m… Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] Comments on draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-m… N.Leymann