Re: [multrans] Draft Multrans BoF request

[Jacni Qin <[e-mail]>]

hi Olaf,

Or "IPvX-Framed" ? :-)

Cheers,
Jacni

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Lee, Yiu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Olaf,
>
> I understand where the confusion comes from. Content supposes to be IP
> version agnostic. I think IPvX-transported content may be a better word.
>
> Yiu
>
> On 6/7/11 2:17 AM, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hmmm, I'm struggling a bit with the term "IPvX-formatted content". Since
> >it is clear to me how I should interprte this term I'm not sure if it is
> >really correct.
> >Perhaps "IPvX-transported content" could do a better job, but I'm
> >unfortunately not a native speaker and may fail as well.
> >
> >Olaf
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: [e-mail]
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Tina Tsou
> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Juni 2011 00:03
> >> An: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: 'Jari Arkko'
> >> Betreff: [multrans] Draft Multrans BoF request
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> This is the draft Multrans BoF request, written by Christian
> >> and the authors
> >> of problem statement I-D. Your comments are welcome. We plan
> >> to send the
> >> final version to the AD Jari by this Friday.
> >>
> >> In current deployments, the IP multicast forwarding scheme is
> >> used by many
> >> providers to deliver some services, such as live TV broadcasting.
> >> Transition to IPv6 raises issues and corresponding requirements. In
> >> particular, IPv4 service continuity is an essential requirement from a
> >> business perspective.
> >> This specifically includes continued receiver access to IPv4-formatted
> >> contents even when the assignment of a dedicated global IPv4
> >> address to the
> >> receiver is no longer possible and even after the receivers
> >> have migrated to
> >> IPv6.
> >> Likewise, the delivery of IPv6-formatted contents to IPv4
> >> receivers must
> >> also be possible.
> >> Multicast transition scenarios include the ability to access
> >> IPv4-formatted
> >> multicast contents from an IPv4 receiver over an IPv6-only
> >> network and the
> >> ability to access IPv4-formatted multicast contents from an IPv6-only
> >> receiver.
> >> The aforementioned issues can be classified into:
> >> .     Multicast group and source discovery procedures
> >> .     Multicast group subscription procedures
> >> .     Multicast tree computation
> >> .     Required IPv4-IPv6 multicast inter-working functions
> >> The proposed BoF session aims at discussing and hopefully
> >> validating the
> >> need for the IETF to work on these issues.
> >> The proposed agenda for the BoF session goes like this:
> >> .     Welcome introduction and agenda bashing (chairs, 10 min)
> >> .     Multicast transition scenarios (TBD, 20 min)
> >> .     Requirements issues (TBD, 15 min)
> >> .     Issues (TBD, 15 min)
> >> .     Discussion (all, 20 min)
> >> .     Conclusion and next steps (chairs, ADs, 10 min)
> >> Reading material:
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaclee-behave-v4v6-mcast-ps-02"
> >>
> >> BoF chairs should include one rep from the service provider's
> >> community.
> >>
> >>
> >> We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Tina TSOU
> >> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> multrans mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >multrans mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans
>
> _______________________________________________
> multrans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans
>