Subject: [dhcwg] Review Request for draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:35:46 +0200

Dear all,

Softiwre WG adopted recently this document:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-00

Comments from DHC WG are are more than welcome. Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:04:49 +0000

Why is this a single option?   It seems like you are conveying three separate pieces of information, not all of which will be populated, so it would be better to have three options, and then the client can request all three, and the server can return the ones that are configured?   Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to do here?

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:21:08 +0200

Dear Ted,

Yes, we can do.

FYI, we defined these as separate sub-options in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-01 but the authors finally agreed to define it as a single option. We thought it was more simple. A more serious issue is to associate the provisioned U_PREFIX64 with the multicast service and avoid using it for unicast. An example would be a provider deploying NAT64 with a dedicated PREFIX64 (RFC6052) distinct from the one used for IPv4/IPv6 multicast. Having all these pieces of information in one single packet ensures the provisioned information will be used only for multicast services.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Envoyé : mercredi 4 avril 2012 18:05
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : [email-masked]; Xiaohong Deng; Jacni Qin
>Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Review Request for 
>draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option
>
>Why is this a single option?   It seems like you are conveying 
>three separate pieces of information, not all of which will be 
>populated, so it would be better to have three options, and 
>then the client can request all three, and the server can 
>return the ones that are configured?   Or am I 
>misunderstanding what you are trying to do here?
>
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:25:25 +0200

>De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De 
>la part de [email-masked]
>Envoyé : mercredi 4 avril 2012 18:21
>À : Ted Lemon

To avoid confusion, I meant we could do it that way but we prefer to have one single option for the reason explained below.

>
>FYI, we defined these as separate sub-options in 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-multicast-prefix-
>option-01 but the authors finally agreed to define it as a 
>single option. We thought it was more simple. A more serious 
>issue is to associate the provisioned U_PREFIX64 with the 
>multicast service and avoid using it for unicast. An example 
>would be a provider deploying NAT64 with a dedicated PREFIX64 
>(RFC6052) distinct from the one used for IPv4/IPv6 multicast. 
>Having all these pieces of information in one single packet 
>ensures the provisioned information will be used only for 
>multicast services.
>
>Cheers,
>Med
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>