IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
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 CC9A21F0CB8 for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:14:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.885, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 mF2EEm3v4QHQ for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4395A1F0CAD for <multrans@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:14:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=1988; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321240498; x=1322450098; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aclvkIpttFLEcqqjy5VgvZk5NvMnbvr0+rLNCRgxGyo=; b=gGSYy2TngwkmFkA6cLF5K60KTTZ6ulYr8N51aeRvXUYspomj1722u5V6 Jsf5Z17tP8OaxTGTVWW1kEMmrN66elc+a4Yh1SHQuOSu4GSB109x9SFzH eZJYHVav0ekK8Qeq+yaNfxJkxMkCjb8RAj3D6+jrHbF3SqZTAkgNLxvhS I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApgAAGaGwE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABCmXeBao4cgQWBcgEBAQMBCAoBFxA/BQcBAwIJDwIEAQEBJwcZIwoJCAEBBBMLF4dgmWcBnT2JfwSIDoRnAZk+
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,505,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="13977228"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2011 03:14:58 +0000
Received: from dwingWS (sjc-vpn4-650.cisco.com [10.21.82.138]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAE3EuNY010647; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:14:57 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Tom Taylor' <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
References: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C1E05D0@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com> <BLU0-SMTP24236B87B5A606110FF802D8DD0@phx.gbl> <004d01cca0d0$e72adf10$b5809d30$@com> <BLU0-SMTP38CCABA3BE5F1E8C004E26D8C30@phx.gbl> <01c701cca273$510da810$f328f830$@com> <BLU0-SMTP18C567DFB17812CF62824DD8C00@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP18C567DFB17812CF62824DD8C00@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:14:56 +0800
Message-ID: <021a01cca27b$969731f0$c3c595d0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcyieU370yh+FB+1SPawkxB7vU4nogAAhRPA
Content-Language: en-us
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 03:14:58 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom111.taylor@bell.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:59 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: multrans@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [multrans] link to meeting slides for multrans BoF
> 
> 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?

Will there be a mix of customers with, and without, AF1?  E.g., "legacy"
customers who have not purchased or have not installed AF1?  The answer to
that question influences the answer to your question significantly.

-d


> 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