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

Dear Ron,
I agree with you that if the addressing scheme is kept simple, it is definitely better. However, since the Internet at present is more IPv4 rather than IPv6, should we consider keeping more IPv4 only transit networks in mind? On the other hand, if IPv6 addressing scheme supports more IPv4 only networks, according to me, people will be more reluctant to deploy IPv6 in their IPv4 only network. So, for deployment and adoption of IPv6, the use cases should be limited, right? I look forward hearing from you.

Tina

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mboned-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Ronald Bonica
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 7:27 AM
> To: mboned@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] An alternative to draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-
> address-format?
> 
> Tina,
> 
> We should be remember two things wrt address formats:
> 
> - the MLTRANS problem will be with us only for a short time (until walled-
> garden IPTV providers upgrade to IPv6)
> - changes that we make to the IPv6 addressing scheme will be with us
> forever
> 
> So, in the interest of keeping the IPv6 addressing scheme simple, we
> should try our best to limit the number of uses cases that we support and
> make the smallest possible change to the IPv6 addressing scheme. It
> doesn't make sense to complicate the IPv6 addressing scheme in order to
> support a use-case that will rarely or never be deployed.
> 
>                                        Ron
>                                        /speaking as AD
> 
> 
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 01:41:22 +0000
> > From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
> > To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, Stig Venaas
> > 	<stig@venaas.com>
> > Cc: "mboned@ietf.org" <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
> >
> >
> **********
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned