IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multimob] Comments on draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt

Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Sat, 01 November 2008 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <multimob-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: multimob-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-multimob-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0A73A6902; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: multimob@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multimob@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08053A684E for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.016
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, SARE_RECV_IP_222000=1.508]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I25gLpmjM0f3 for <multimob@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pione.sfc.wide.ad.jp (pione.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.143.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4333A6B8A for <multimob@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (KHP222006121211.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp [222.6.121.211]) by pione.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD73D13D03D6 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:18:37 +0900 (JST)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:41:05 +0900
Message-Id: <20081101.144105.134221856.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: multimob@ietf.org
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20081101.143137.247155156.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
References: <4900E5A0.9050306@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <1d38a3350810312008x377ea91aw2739355335d2a207@mail.gmail.com> <20081101.143137.247155156.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2.54 on Emacs 22.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [multimob] Comments on draft-deng-multimob-pmip6-requirement-01.txt
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/multimob>
List-Post: <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: multimob-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: multimob-bounces@ietf.org

> So, I'd like to again ask the question especially to operators who
> plan to or may prepare PMIPv6 multicast services; Is there a big
> impact or problem if all multicast traffic goes through an LMA-MAG
> tunnel?
> 
> Note that our PMIPv6 multicast extension draft tentatively supports
> the local routing, but I personally think it can be removed if
> consensus.

Well, it may not be necessary to completely remove the possibility
from the document, but specify "optional" as the minor case. Same for
the requirement draft.
--
Hitoshi Asaeda
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
multimob@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email