RE: [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence
Prashant Jhingran <prashantj@huawei.com> Wed, 12 September 2007 12:41 UTC
Return-path: <mboned-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVRWs-0002U1-2I; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:14 -0400
Received: from mboned by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IVRWq-0002Qc-Te for mboned-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:12 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVRWq-0002QU-DO for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:12 -0400
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.7]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVRWo-00022g-RX for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:12 -0400
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JO900KTZ9VDW5@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:40:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JO900MTU9VCR8@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:40:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from prashant7175 ([10.18.5.160]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JO9007MT9V70C@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:40:24 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:10:12 +0530
From: Prashant Jhingran <prashantj@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence
In-reply-to: <46E7B0C6.6010801@uninett.no>
To: 'Stig Venaas' <stig.venaas@uninett.no>
Message-id: <000301c7f53a$10b3de00$a005120a@china.huawei.com>
Organization: Huawei Technologies
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acf1H8fnj68yIgR6SS+EnY2rZLLNyAAFsssg
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: b132cb3ed2d4be2017585bf6859e1ede
Cc: mboned@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: prashantj@huawei.com
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mboned-bounces@ietf.org
As per the mail, solution for following scenarios may be required: - Multicast between IPv6 isolated domains connected via IPv4 backbone - Multicast between IPv6 only domains & IPv4 only domains [draft-venaas-mboned-v4v6mcastgw-00.txt] - Multicast between IPv4 isolated domains connected via IPv6 backbone [draft-xu-softwire-4over6multicast-00] Provided border routers are dual-stack in all the above scenarios. Various protocol standards exists for IPv6 multicast but there exists none which facilitates a smooth integration of IPv6 with the existing IPv4 networks! I also feel that the WG should address these scenarios particularly the first two listed above. -----Original Message----- From: Stig Venaas [mailto:stig.venaas@uninett.no] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:57 PM To: mboned@ietf.org Subject: [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence With the transition/migration to IPv6 we will probably for decades have nodes and networks that either can be IPv4-only, both IPv4 and IPv6, or IPv6-only. And of course, combinations of those. Below are some thoughts regarding multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence. Looking at end nodes (multicast sources and receivers) the principal problem is that the source and all the receivers must use the same IP protocol. If you source multicast and some receivers are IPv4-only and some IPv6-only, you will need to either send the stream twice, both IPv4 and IPv6, or you need some kind of translation. Having the source send the content twice might be fine for many single source applications. It becomes more problematic if receivers send multicast RTCP reports that you want all the other receivers to receive, or if you have multi-party applications like conferencing. One thing is bandwidth, the other is that this is not possible if some of the participants are IPv4-only and some IPv6-only. We can hope that in the short run all end-points can do IPv4 multicast (IPv4-only or dual-stack), and that by the time we get many IPv6-only there will be few IPv4-only. I am far from sure this will be the case, but this would simplify things. Assuming that all nodes participating in a multicast session (all sources and receivers) can speak the same IP protocol, one can avoid translation. However, while all the end-points might speak the same, there will probably be a need for encapsulation/tunneling techniques to make things work through networks that might only support multicast for one of the IP protocols. It might make sense to encapsulate multicast from one IP protocol into multicast in the other, however one could consider unicast encapsulation as well. There could also be some other interesting aspects, e.g. one might say have IPv6 islands doing ASM being connected by an IPv4 network using SSM. There are also some application level issues. It is not quite clear to me how you for instance in SDP can signal that the same content is available both from an IPv4 and an IPv6 address and have the application somehow try one of them and if necessary fall back to the other. I would like to know whether people think it is worth looking into such issues. Are we likely to run into such problems in the short term, should we wait and see whether the need arises, or is it just a waste of time and not a real problem? I kind of see some of these problems myself. But so far the networks and nodes I am exposed to are either IPv4-only or dual-stack, so one can always reach everyone using IPv4 multicast if one wants to make sure everyone can receive. Stig _______________________________________________ MBONED mailing list MBONED@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned _______________________________________________ MBONED mailing list MBONED@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
- [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence Stig Venaas
- RE: [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence Prashant Jhingran
- RE: [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] Multicast and IPv4-IPv6 co-existence John Zwiebel