Re: [MBONED] draft-tsou-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition

Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net> Mon, 09 July 2012 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <lenny@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 2F45F11E80FE for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 IYW4DvhKRX8z for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og115.obsmtp.com (exprod7og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE7711E80FC for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob115.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT/s+E9XgnioVMkfoezjSKM5JvdiKrsTn@postini.com; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:24:53 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:24:05 -0700
Received: from eng-mail01.juniper.net (eng-mail01.juniper.net [172.17.28.114]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id q69KO4h70107; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:24:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
Received: by eng-mail01.juniper.net (Postfix, from userid 1709) id CA2321144F; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eng-mail01.juniper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDEF11446; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:24:04 -0700
From: Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
To: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF5BD99.6080105@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120709131631.W63595@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
References: <20120705082719.Q95800@eng-mail01.juniper.net> <4FF5BD99.6080105@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: MBONED WG <mboned@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] draft-tsou-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:24:28 -0000

If it is demonstrated that other use cases are likely to be deployed for 
mcast, then the WG will consider those.  

We simply want to focus our efforts on those use cases that are likely to 
deployed for mcast, not every theoretical permutation of cases.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Tom Taylor wrote:

-) You are taking a rather old-fashioned view of IPv6 transition. The IETF held
-) for at least 15 years that dual stack was the way to achieve it, but dual
-) stack didn't happen. Behave and Softwires have developed alternatives, which
-) operators are deploying. You are ignoring reality with your present position.
-) 
-) On 05/07/2012 11:36 AM, Leonard Giuliano wrote:
-) > 
-) > Regarding the question of adopting
-) > draft-tsou-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition as a WG document, and with
-) > respect to the larger questions about Multrans work in Mboned, we have
-) > reached the following conclusion:
-) > 
-) > - The WG's goal is to standardize only technologies that will see
-) > significant deployment
-) > 
-) > - The WG is currently engaged in a discussion regarding the uses-cases
-) > enumerated in draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps. WG participants agreed
-) > that both of the "dual-stack" use cases are likely to see deployment.
-) > However, the WG has yet to demonstrate sufficient motivation for any
-) > solution other than "unicast tunneling" in scenarios when the problem
-) > network or network segment is not both dual stack and multicast enabled.
-) > In order to demonstrate sufficient motivation, the proponents should
-) > explain why unicast tunneling until dual stack can be deployed is not a
-) > viable solution.
-) > 
-) > - Until the discussion mentioned above is resolved,
-) > draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps cannot progress to WG last call
-) > 
-) > - Because all MULTRANS documents should normatively reference
-) > draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps, they cannot progress to WG last call
-) > until draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps progresses to WG last call
-) > 
-) > - However, the WG may accept other MULTRANS work, with the understanding
-) > that it may have to change pending the outcome of discussions mentioned
-) > above.
-) > 
-) > - Therefore, draft-tsou-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition can be accepted
-) > as a WG document, given the above-mentioned caveats and the support
-) > expressed by the WG to adopt.  The authors may resubmit this doc as
-) > draft-mboned -...
-) > 
-) > MBONED Chairs
-) > _______________________________________________
-) > MBONED mailing list
-) > MBONED@ietf.org
-) > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
-) > 
-)