Sounds like a logical step forward. This should be an applicability statement for the Mboned-defined AF for a 4-6-4 network scenario.
Sent from my iPad On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:02 AM, "Lee, Yiu" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" <[email protected]> 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"<[email protected]> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
