Re: [multrans] Draft Multrans BoF request

> Also, for my background: are there providers who are asking for multicast transition solutions? I.e., not just deploying multicast separately for the two IP versions?
Jari, 
There are people from FT and Comcast as the author of the problem statements, indicating they are asking not just deploying multicast separately for the two IP versions. It does not have to mean their deployments are exactly the same as the document.
In addition, in my mind, the deployment of SSM and ASM on the dual stack network is also part of multicast transition. Some operators are asking it. Though the priority could be discussed, the scope could be discussed.

Best regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/

On Jun 13, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> Tina, others,
> 
> I'm trying to construct a wiki entry for this BOF so that the IESG and IAB have all the information available to them to make decisions on what BOFs to approve on Thursday. What other drafts than the ps I should list? Is there a pointer to a mailing list post or some web site for the proposed charter? Also, for my background: are there providers who are asking for multicast transition solutions? I.e., not just deploying multicast separately for the two IP versions?
> 
> Here's what we have so far:
> 
>> MULTRANS - Multicast Transition 
>> Description: Proposed BOF to gather efforts around enabling IPv4-IPv6 coexistence and transition with multicast traffic. This proposal has relationships to existing chartered work in SOFTWIRE and BEHAVE working groups.
>> Length of session: 120 minutes 
>> Responsible AD: Jari Arkko, Ralph Droms, and David Harrington 
>> Mailing list:  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans 
>> Drafts: [ jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps] 
>> Agenda: [ agenda] 
>> Charter: TBD 
>> Status: Under consideration
> 
> Jari
> 