Thaler
dtha...@microsoft.com; mbo...@ietf.org mbo...@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org
6...@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of
Multicast
Bunch of comments...
1. What Mark is proposing is being done AFAIK
6...@ietf.org; mbo...@ietf.org mbo...@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery
of Multicast
Hi Mark,
I read your draft.
First of all I think you misunderstood RFC 6085 and based on a wrong
assumption
On Apr 2, 2013, at 03:48, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
Why should an AP not be able to convert multicast-unicast.
Oh sure. I haven't checked 802.11 if its four-address structure actually might
make this work without any change at the adaptation layer or above. Hacking
the
Why should an AP not be able to convert multicast-unicast. All it would ahve
to do is IGMPv3 snooping to know the clients connected to it. And it does know
the
per-client bitrate, aka: how far or how close a client is.
I guess the one things that not possible is to send the smae multicast
Indeed, an 802.11 AP should be able to do this without breaking 802.11.
However, there are probably wider cases where unicast fanout is worth
doing.
BTW, it's a common misconception that 802.11 transmit rates have something
to do with range; actually, they're only very weakly correlated with
...@yahoo.com.au; 6...@ietf.org
6...@ietf.org; mbo...@ietf.org mbo...@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery
of Multicast
Hi Mark,
I read your draft.
First of all I think you misunderstood RFC 6085 and based on a wrong
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet
Sarikaya
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 8:33 AM
To: Mark Smith
Cc: mbo...@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of
Multicast
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Mark Smith
markzzzsm
: [MBONED] MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery
of Multicast
** **
Hi Mark,
** **
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Mark Smith markzzzsm...@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
Hi Behcet,
Thanks for your review and comments.
From: Behcet
As far as I know, the operators prefer native multicast for IPTV
applications, for a good reason.
It seem like this is the application that Mark has in mind.
So, yes, it is a fairly good idea to study how multicast delivery could be
accomplished by a series of unicast transmission.
There
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christian Huitema
There are two solutions today: multicast all the way, from the source
to the various destinations; and, unicast all the way. The multicast
solution suffers from very poor
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 08:55:21PM +, Dave Thaler wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-ngtrans-6to4-multicast
is work we did back in 2000 on this same topic. At the time, the draft is
written from
the perspective of the 6to4 NBMA link, but the topic was discussed
2013 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of
Multicast
Hi Mark,
I read your draft.
First of all I think you misunderstood RFC 6085 and based on a wrong
assumption you developed your solution.
What specifically do you think I've
On Apr 1, 2013, at 22:56, Toerless Eckert eck...@cisco.com wrote:
It is clear that 802.11 is particularily challenged with native L2
multicast because
they never defined a good resilience scheme as for unicast but so far not
for multicast.
Hopefully this will get fixed sometime.
In
Hi Mark,
I read your draft.
First of all I think you misunderstood RFC 6085 and based on a wrong
assumption you developed your solution. I suggest you take a look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-netext-pmipv6-shared-link-01
on Netext for PMIPv6.
I believe that we should use
March 2013 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of
Multicast
Hi Mark,
I read your draft.
First of all I think you misunderstood RFC 6085 and based on a wrong
assumption you developed your solution.
What specifically do you think I've misunderstood? I
On Mar 29, 2013, at 23:18, Mark Smith markzzzsm...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
The main use case
I certainly can sympathize with this use case.
I'm more interested in solutions that scale, up and down.
When we did 6LoWPAN-ND to get rid of the requirement for subnet-wide multicast,
we stuck to the
16 matches
Mail list logo
