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

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your comments. Responses below.

On 27/06/2011 10:45 PM, Jacni Qin wrote:
> hi Tom,
>
> Some comments,
>
> Page 8:
> Issue: translation of a given address tends to happen
> at multiple nodes, and at different stages within the
> same node.
> ● Need the same mapping or its inverse, as applicable, to be
> used each time a given address is translated. Implies inter-
> nodal coordination in some form.
>
> Jacni>: The coordination is probably required in the stateful
> translation. While in some stateless cases, maybe not.

[PTT] I agree there is less coordination for stateless, but at least the 
different nodes have to be provisioned with the special prefix being 
used to construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses in this network.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
[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.

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.
>
> 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
>>
>>
>