IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [multrans] link to meeting slides for multrans BoF

Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net> Mon, 14 November 2011 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
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 652AB11E8194 for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:58:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LF5zBMbpwVjV for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s17.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s17.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6296611E8160 for <multrans@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP18 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s17.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:58:34 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [76.70.77.190]
X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP18C567DFB17812CF62824DD8C00@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.2.17] ([76.70.77.190]) by BLU0-SMTP18.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:58:34 -0800
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:58:33 -0500
From: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
References: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1E05D0@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com> <BLU0-SMTP24236B87B5A606110FF802D8DD0@phx.gbl> <004d01cca0d0$e72adf10$b5809d30$@com> <BLU0-SMTP38CCABA3BE5F1E8C004E26D8C30@phx.gbl> <01c701cca273$510da810$f328f830$@com>
In-Reply-To: <01c701cca273$510da810$f328f830$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2011 02:58:34.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C76FA30:01CCA279]
Cc: multrans@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multrans] link to meeting slides for multrans BoF
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, 14 Nov 2011 02:58:36 -0000

Oops, I'll think about how to fix that up. The intended question was:
   - is it infeasible to have AF1 at the provider edge?
   - is it infeasible to have AF1 at the customer edge?
   - does one have an advantage over the other?

On 13/11/2011 9:15 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom111.taylor@bell.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:57 AM
>> To: Dan Wing
>> Cc: multrans@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [multrans] link to meeting slides for multrans BoF
>>
>> Below.
>>
>> On 11/11/2011 7:20 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: multrans-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:multrans-bounces@ietf.org]
>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Tom Taylor
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 4:11 AM
>> ...
>>>
>>> Slide 8:  yes, IPv6 and IPv4 on the access network is infeasible.  I
>> mean,
>>> isn't the access network where everybody has insufficient bandwidth
>> for
>>> carrying the same traffic on both IPv6 and IPv4, isn't it?
>>>
>> [PTT] Sorry, I don't get the linkage between this and what the slide
>> says.
>
> The slide said something like "is it infeasible to run both IPv6
> and IPv4 on the access link" -- or, at least, that is what I
> interpreted the slide to mean.
>
> If my interpretation is not the intent of the slide, the slide
> should probably be made clearer.
>
> -d
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> -d
>>> ...
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email