Re: [multrans] Issues charts for presentation at the BoF

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the suggestion, but interworking is already dealt with on 
slide 6. I think chart 9 deals with a separate issue.

On 28/06/2011 10:42 PM, Jacni Qin wrote:
> hi Tom,
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Tom Taylor<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>>
>>> Page 9:
>>> Jacni>: I do agree with that the original design of DS-Lite or 6rd
>>> (unicast-based tunnel)
>>> should not be used for multicast delivery, but that can NOT lead to the
>>> conclusion stated in the second bullet ("Possible to use encapsulation in
>>> the form of a softwire mesh between multicast routers.").
>>> Mesh is a different use case, the mesh approaches do not apply to DS-Lite
>>> or
>>> 6rd cases either.
>>>
>>
>>
>> [PTT] I can drop the term "softwire mesh" and say simply that it is
>> possible to use tunnels between the multicast routers, if you want. But
>> isn't a mesh required to support the routing of the PIM signalling? I
>> thought I was using the term in the same sense as
>> draft-xu-softwire-mesh-multicast-01.
>>
>>
> Jacni>: How about this for Page 9 ?
>
> Encapsulation
>
> Issue: For different use cases (e.g. DS-Lite, 6rd or Mesh), unicast
> based encapsulation does not apply to multicast.
>
> Possible to form corresponding MDT within the underneath network by
> implementing interworking function of signalling.
> ● to guarantee the efficiency of multicast traffic forwarding.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Page 10:
>>> Jacni>: The discussions about dual-stack network are a little confusing.
>>> The
>>> network may be dual-stack enabled from the device connected to headends,
>>> to
>>> the IGMP/MLD Querier.
>>> Or the network may be partially dual-stack enabled. The latter one is
>>> "native transport + translation", and can be simplified as a translation
>>> case.
>>> Please refer to the -01 of the PS draft, maybe some text in the Section
>>> 3.3
>>> can be reused:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-**
>>> mcast-ps-01#page-8<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps-01#page-8>
>>>
>>>   [PTT] Page 10 deals with the specific case of a single dual stack network
>> between the sources and the receivers. I actually have mixed versions in
>> mind at both ends, although I know that IPv6 sources have lower priority. So
>> the intention is to indicate some strategies for network operations under
>> those particular assumptions.
>>
>> Jacni>: Yes, the IPv6 sources have lower priority, better to state that.
>
>
>> I think you are saying that this is not the use case that you are pointing
>> at in section 3.3 of the problem statement. I did not intend it to be so.
>> What I should do is expand this page to two charts, giving the assumptions I
>> just stated and adding the diagrams Dan suggested.
>
>
> Jacni>: Ok, I can wait for your updates.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jacni
>
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jacni
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Tom Taylor<[e-mail]>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>   Attached are the charts I propose should be presented on the "issues"
>>>> topic
>>>> at the MULTRANS BoF. Comments in advance are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Taylor
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> multrans mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/multrans<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>