Re: [MBONED] An alternative to draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format?

Hi Tina,

Thanks for your thoughts. For 6-4-6 scenarios, I think it may not require to signal if or not v4 address is embedded as IPv4 cloud will be transit here. I guess Tunneling, AMT or MVPN kind of solution might be apt here.

Regarding the attribute in IPv4 only network, even if there is a requirement to transparently transfer attribute via v4 cloud, per my understanding, it still can be done by setting the F bit. So just the ingress and egress devices are required to understand the content of attribute.

Regards,
Nagendra

-----Original Message-----
From: mboned-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tina TSOU
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:11 AM
To: Manfredi, Albert E; Stig Venaas
Cc: mboned@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MBONED] An alternative to draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format?

The fixed 96 bits and then 32 bits of the IPv4 address is a simpler and better approach according to me, as described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-02. However, this http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-mboned-64mcast-embedded-address-00 document has its advantages of 6-4-6-4 scenario which is missing in the alternative document. The only point I would like to stress upon is if it covers the scenario of 6-4-6, as IPv6 multicast address expressed in terms of IPv4 is something I didn't find in the document. I am only concerned about the validity of the attributes in an IPv4 only multicast network. Would tunnels be used to route the IPv6 packets with the end routers being dual stack?

Tina

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mboned-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 12:35 PM
> To: Stig Venaas
> Cc: mboned@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] An alternative to 
> draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast- address-format?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> > For multicast things are kind of reversed. From say PIM perspective, 
> > you can start out with someone joining an IPv6 group where the last 
> > 32 bits form an IPv4 group address. When this IPv6 join reaches say 
> > a device on the edge of the IPv4 network, it can based on 
> > configuration (or hard-coded if a standardized prefix), or a flag in 
> > the group address, or a join attribute (these are the solutions I 
> > think we have on the table), know that it should extract those 32 
> > bits, and join the IPv4 source. When it receives IPv4 data packets, 
> > it can based on its PIM state know what IPv6 address to translate 
> > them to.
> >
> > There are other use-cases, this is maybe the easiest one.
> 
> This seems similar yo what I had described, except that the 96-bit 
> prefix is configurable (presumably there will be an OOB mechanism to 
> indicate what the prefix should be), AND it also seems to depend on PIM.
> 
> What about cases in which PIM isn't used? For example, where proxy 
> IGMP or proxy MLD is used, to make multicasts traversing a network 
> available to an egress router? Or are we saying that it's okay to have 
> incompatible solutions depending on each use case?
> 
> Bert
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned