IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case

KELLIL Mounir <mounir.kellil@cea.fr> Mon, 02 May 2011 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mounir.kellil@cea.fr>
X-Original-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48C9E06AD; Mon, 2 May 2011 08:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WKBPhz9crKHg; Mon, 2 May 2011 08:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAAFE066E; Mon, 2 May 2011 08:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p42F9XsH016934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 May 2011 17:09:34 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p42F9XKD030153; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:09:33 +0200 (envelope-from mounir.kellil@cea.fr)
Received: from excah-b0.intra.cea.fr (excah-b0.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.85]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p42F9XGq018937; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:09:33 +0200
Received: from levau.intra.cea.fr (132.166.88.52) by excah-b0.intra.cea.fr (132.166.88.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 2 May 2011 17:09:33 +0200
Received: from LODERI.intra.cea.fr ([132.166.64.47]) by levau.intra.cea.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 2 May 2011 17:09:33 +0200
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 17:09:32 +0200
Message-ID: <A2408947975D7A4C95A0DD337F638258021C7FC6@LODERI.intra.cea.fr>
In-Reply-To: <009401cc06c0$eaa919e0$bffb4da0$@com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case
Thread-Index: AcwGwOluKJ5ympwvR4KrSLJ5rPlZEACF+jLg
References: <009401cc06c0$eaa919e0$bffb4da0$@com>
From: KELLIL Mounir <mounir.kellil@cea.fr>
To: Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2011 15:09:33.0028 (UTC) FILETIME=[F13FBA40:01CC08DA]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.4152-6.500.1024-18110.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.229000-8.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
Cc: MBONED WG <mboned@ietf.org>, multrans@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case
X-BeenThere: multrans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the work of IPv4-IPv6 multicast." <multrans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multrans>
List-Post: <mailto:multrans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 15:09:43 -0000

Hi Tina,

I think the problem you are addressing is interesting. It reminds me a work we've done in our team a few months ago (an old draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kellil-sam-mtocp-01). We addressed the multicasting problem in a heterogeneous IP network (heterogeneity in terms of multicast support and IP protocol version). We proposed an overlay paradigm to be applied at the transport layer. Overlay nodes are in charge of forwarding traffic, but also translating IPv4 packets into IPv6 packets and vice versa. Maybe this work (and probably others from IRTF's SAMRG group) could be quoted as a "state-of-the-art". Just a suggestion...
 

Regards

Mounir KELLIL

CEA LIST
web : http://www-list.cea.fr
 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : multrans-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multrans-bounces@ietf.org] De la
> part de Tina Tsou
> Envoyé : samedi 30 avril 2011 00:58
> À : multrans@ietf.org
> Cc : 'MBONED WG'; pim@ietf.org
> Objet : [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case
> 
> Hi all,
> Just bring some comments on the dual stack case for the new problem
> statement I-D based on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps/.
> And I
> also suggest the new problem statement I-D being
> draft-jaclee-multrans-v4v6-mcast-ps, since it is not ONLY behave any
> more.
> 
> I cc pim@ietf.org and mboned@ietf.org looking for multicast expertise
> to
> help on input to this new problem statement.
> 
> Comments on Dual Stack case are below, inspired by talk with Stig.
> 1. Even in the native dual stack case, you want to save bandwidth, not
> put
> two copy of bandwidth under one source.
> 
> 2. For P2MP case, the receivers are part of IPv4, part of IPv6, this is
> problem.
> 
> 3. For video conference, you have 30 people, 15 are v4, 15 are v6, and
> any
> of them can send their videos (everyone has a webcam and microphone).
> 
> 
> We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Tina TSOU
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multrans mailing list
> multrans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email