rg" ; "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 AFAI
d
> as opposed to a
>protocol group (i think... ).
>
> Cheers
> Toerless
>
>tracking of
>that it is consisting purely of mechanisms that the accss-point type
> device in a
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 03:18:06PM -0700, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
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 rang
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
group
On Apr 2, 2013, at 03:48, Toerless Eckert 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 destination address vi
On Apr 1, 2013, at 22:56, Toerless Eckert 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 a MIMO world
o...@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 mi
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
> (spec
gt;
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013 7:06 AM
> Subject: RE: [MBONED] "MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of
> Multicast"
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Christian
> -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 poo
> 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.
t 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"
>
> *
...@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
mailto
> 6...@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.
>
On Mar 29, 2013, at 23:18, Mark Smith 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 constrained node network u
Hi Behcet,
Thanks for your review and comments.
>
> From: Behcet Sarikaya
>To: Dave Thaler
>Cc: Mark Smith ; "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>;
>"mbo...@ietf.org"
>Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:33 AM
>Subject
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 multicast
17 matches
Mail list logo
