Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]> wrote:
> +1
> The IGMP/MLD translation is the key piece of this draft and needs to be
> thorough.
>
> In addition a general observation: This draft appears to have very little in
> common with DS-Lite (nothing except use of IPinIP on my reading), and using
> that reference and the AFTR terms is confusing. The fact that technically it
> features an address family mapped multicast transport, which alongside with
> the IGMP/MLD translation makes it anything but transparent tunneling. A
> change of title would be also useful, as well as general decoupling from the
> ds-lite architecture: The mAFTR device can, and likely will be a often a
> dedicated multicast device that plays no part in unicast forwarding.
>

You mean, in order to be DS-Lite related it has to be tunneling based?

Actually, I did have a draft with such a solution.
Some people argued that we should not go for a tunneling solution
because there is already an inherent tunneling. So this draft was
chosen as the solution approach.

The philosophical question here is why do we have DS-Lite which does
tunneling on top of the inherent tunnel?

Behcet