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