Re-,
On 5/15/2012 Tuesday 5:06 AM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
Hi Stig,
Right. I explain only one use case. Other may find the latter case is more
attractive for their deployments. This address format should enable the
dynamic use case as well.
Yes, imaging the coexistence of the native provisioning and th
Hi Brian,
I think that there is a lot of confusion on the mails related to this
tread and some others regarding IPv4 IPv6 multicast work.
The confusion is stemming from the fact that multicast communication
is being abstracted from unicast communication.
I can not imagine any host being involved
Hi Stig,
Right. I explain only one use case. Other may find the latter case is more
attractive for their deployments. This address format should enable the
dynamic use case as well.
Yiu
On 5/14/12 4:56 PM, "Stig Venaas" wrote:
>On 5/14/2012 1:50 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Sorry for
On 5/14/2012 1:50 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
Hi Brian,
Sorry for getting back late. I read Bert's answers to your questions. His
answers are inline with my answers. Most information are statically
configured. For example: Ch1 is statically configured to 224.1.2.3 via OOB
mechanism. If the STB is IPv4 o
Hi Brian,
Sorry for getting back late. I read Bert's answers to your questions. His
answers are inline with my answers. Most information are statically
configured. For example: Ch1 is statically configured to 224.1.2.3 via OOB
mechanism. If the STB is IPv4 only, it will only use IPv4 mcast address
; The IESG;
>apps-disc...@ietf.org application-layer protocols;
>draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format....@tools.ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [MBONED] APPSDIR review of
>draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01
>
>Hi Yiu,
> Let me ask a few questions...
>
>
f-mboned-64-multicast-address-format@tools.ietf.org; The IESG;
> mbo...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-
> address-format-01
>
> Hi Yiu,
> Let me ask a few questions...
>
> On 5/9/12 10:52 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
> >
> From: mboned-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Haberman
> On 5/9/12 10:52 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > Thanks very much for reviewing the document. I just want to add a
> point to
> > your question about how applications decide when to use this
Hi Yiu,
Let me ask a few questions...
On 5/9/12 10:52 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
Hi Carsten,
Thanks very much for reviewing the document. I just want to add a point to
your question about how applications decide when to use this multicast
address format. In fact, they don't. Imagine a use case wh
d-64-multicast-address-format....@tools.ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [MBONED] APPSDIR review of
>draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01
>
>Hi Tina,
>
>thanks for the pointers.
>
>On the problem statement, you say:
>
>> It's has been adopted as MBONED WG item.
Hi Tina,
thanks for the pointers.
On the problem statement, you say:
> It's has been adopted as MBONED WG item. The authors will submit the WG draft
> soon.
So I would normally expect the two documents (problem statement and normative
spec) to go through as a cluster (if not the problem state
Hi Carsten,
Thanks a lot for your comments, please see inline below.
On 5/10/2012 Thursday 2:20 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Hi Med,
thanks for looking into my review. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate
that, while I wrote this review for the Applications Area Directorate, it is
not in
Sent from my iPad
On May 9, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "Carsten Bormann" wrote:
> Hi Med,
>
> thanks for looking into my review. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate
> that, while I wrote this review for the Applications Area Directorate, it is
> not intended to bear more weight than any othe
13 matches
Mail list logo
