[multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case

Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com> Fri, 29 April 2011 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tena@huawei.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 A52A8E06AD; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBJ6Az+juLRu; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE63E0698; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKF00MWCRSXB4@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:58:09 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from TingZousc1 ([10.193.34.188]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LKF009NURSUYC@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:58:09 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:58:10 -0700
From: Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com>
To: multrans@ietf.org
Message-id: <009401cc06c0$eaa919e0$bffb4da0$@com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en-us
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thread-index: AcwGwOluKJ5ympwvR4KrSLJ5rPlZEA==
Cc: 'MBONED WG' <mboned@ietf.org>, pim@ietf.org
Subject: [multrans] Comments on Dual Stack case
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: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:58:10 -0000

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