Re: [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case

Bonjour Tina,

We consider a dual-stack network only. The source could be IPv4 only or IPv6 only, not necessarily both. Regarding SAMRG, they normally intend to push the work (not ours) further to IETF. But, honestly, I am not aware of their current status. 

BTW, I will be happy to follow the discussions on multirans 

Best regards

Mounir

Mounir KELLIL
CEA LIST
e-mail : mounir.kellil@cea.fr
web : http://www-list.cea.fr

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Tina Tsou [mailto:tena@huawei.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 2 mai 2011 20:29
> À : KELLIL Mounir
> Cc : 'MBONED WG'; pim@ietf.org; multrans@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case
> 
> Bonjour Mounir,
> Thank you. I read draft-kellil-sam-mtocp-01, it is useful to multrans.
> Do
> you consider dual stack network and/or dual stack source?
> How is the status of IRTF's SAMRG group? Is it time to move some of the
> research result into IETF now?
> 
> 
> We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Tina TSOU
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KELLIL Mounir [mailto:mounir.kellil@cea.fr]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:10 AM
> To: Tina Tsou
> Cc: MBONED WG; pim@ietf.org; multrans@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case
> 
> 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