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

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:47:19 -0700

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

---

From: "Lee, Yiu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:29:26 +0000

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.

B.R.,
Yiu

On 3/20/12 4:47 PM, "Stig Venaas" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: "Lee, Yiu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:31:55 +0000

One more note. When we developed this draft, we focused on access network
delivery. There is a mesh-multicast draft which also solve the same
problem (i.e. Tunneling v4 mcast through v6-only network) in the core
network.

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:09 -0700

> This is a solution for tunneling IPv4 multicast through an IPv6-only

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-masked]>  wrote:
>

---

From: "Lee, Yiu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:02:43 +0000

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!

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:18:31 +0000

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