Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-01.txt

Good feed back. We started to address dslite and like what you said this
could be more generic then just dslite. I will talk to the authors and see
what we should do.

Thanks again!

On 3/23/12 1:02 PM, "Stig Venaas" <stig@venaas.com> wrote:

>On 3/22/2012 7:29 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
>> Hi Stig,
>>
>> DS-Lite was designed to deliver v4 unicast packets over v6-only network
>>to
>> v4 host. However when we started thinking about how to deliver multicast
>> packets in the same network setup, we will have to tunnel all multicast
>> packets over tunnels. This is very inefficient to use of AFTR. This is
>>the
>> motivation of dslite-multicast draft. However, you are absolutely right.
>> This is a solution for tunneling IPv4 multicast through an IPv6-only
>> network.
>
>I agree that double tunneling is a non-starter, so the draft seems to do
>the right thing. But since we seem to agree it is a more general
>solution, why not change the title and the text to make it more
>generic? You can still say that one of the use-cases is to provide IPv4
>multicast for DS-Lite deployments.
>
>Stig
>
>>
>> B.R.,
>> Yiu
>>
>> On 3/20/12 4:47 PM, "Stig Venaas"<stig@venaas.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a little bit puzzled by how this document talks about DS-Lite.
>>> Isn't this an entirely generic solution for tunneling IPv4 multicast
>>> through an IPv6-only network?
>>>
>>> Stig
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-01.txt

Attachment: smime.p7s