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

Dear Ron,
They are simply comments on a new draft, nothing more than this. Sorry for making u thinking about Multrans related to these comments.

The call for 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-mboned-multrans-addr-acquisition/
has ended in May 29th.

It is July 2nd. 
Can the chairs say what the result of this call is?

Tina

On Jul 2, 2012, at 7:28 AM, "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

> 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