Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:46:55 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network
	Author(s)       : Jacni Qin
                          Mohamed Boucadair
                          Christian Jacquenet
                          Yiu L. Lee
                          Qian Wang
	Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2012-08-23

Abstract:
   This document specifies a solution for the delivery of IPv4 multicast
   services to IPv4 clients over an IPv6 multicast network.  The
   solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme
   and uses the IPv6 multicast distribution tree to deliver IPv4
   multicast traffic.  The solution is particularly useful for the
   delivery of multicast service offerings to DS-Lite serviced
   customers.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:54:30 +0200

Dear all,

A new version taking into account comments received during the WGLC has been submitted. The main changes are:

* change the title
* clarify the solution is generic for any 4-6-4 use case and the solution has been designed with DS-Lite in mind
* add a discussion about scoping: preserve the scope when translation multicast addresses
* add a note only IPv4-in-IPv6 encap is detailed in the document but other tunnelling techniques may be defined in the future
* update the security section with some discussions related to scoping.
* + other editorial changes.

To view the detailed changes: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03

I hope this version solve the concerns raised during the WGLC.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de 
>[email-masked]
>Envoyé : jeudi 23 août 2012 16:47
>À : [email-masked]
>Cc : [email-masked]
>Objet : [Softwires] I-D Action: 
>draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03.txt
>
>
>	Title           : Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services 
>to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network
>	Author(s)       : Jacni Qin
>                          Mohamed Boucadair
>                          Christian Jacquenet
>                          Yiu L. Lee
>                          Qian Wang
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:45:01 -0700

> * + other editorial changes.

Thanks for doing this. The new version looks good to me.

Just two comments.

1. This document probably needs to wait on the address format draft. The
    examples here depend on what format is chosen.

2. It would be good to ask for a review in mboned. There are people
    there that know multicast and might be interested in this solution.
    Also, people that read this would get a better understanding for the
    need of the address format draft and multicast transitioning in
    general.

Stig

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:33:26 -0500

Hi Med,

Thanks for posting this revision but it seems like it has not solved
any problems but instead it created more problems :-).

First, please see the two active tickets,

ticket #10
and
ticket  #11

in the issue tracker:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/report/1

In addition, in Section 4.3, the draft all of a sudden deviates from
translation which is used all over and introduces encapsulation.
I had asked before in my mails, asking it again, why? You think that
translation of multicast data could not be used/does not work? Please
see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-behave-mcast4nat64-06

Section 5 might be containing immature text as the underlying draft
work has not yet been finalized.

The right way to handle tickets # 10 & 11
is

first to include the encapsulation solution

and next describe the drawbacks based on the application that you
consider  and then

next present this translation solution.

Failing this, the only suggestion is to take this draft to another
place, e.g. mboned and try its chances there.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Lee, Yiu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:07:54 +0000

Hi Stig,

Agree we should review this in mboned. We will send a separate message to
mboned for review. Thanks very much for all your comments.

Thanks,
Yiu

On 8/23/12 1:45 PM, "Stig Venaas" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> * clarify the solution is generic for any 4-6-4 use case and the
>>solution has been designed with DS-Lite in mind
>> * add a note only IPv4-in-IPv6 encap is detailed in the document but
>>other tunnelling techniques may be defined in the future
>> To view the detailed changes:

---

From: Jacni Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:26:38 +0800

Re-,

On 8/24/2012 Friday 1:45 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
>> A new version taking into account comments received during the WGLC 
>> has been submitted. The main changes are:
>>
>> * change the title
Great, Thanks a lot for your comments and helps to improve the doc.

>    examples here depend on what format is chosen.
True, we'll update it accordingly after the address format design is done.

Cheers,
Jacni
> .

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:41:14 +0200

Hi Behcet,

I'm ready to record in the document whatever the WG agrees to do. But as far as I know the solution which consists in encapsulating all multicast flows to the unicast AFTR has not been accepted by the working group. The drawbacks are even been documented in this draft.  

I'm aware of the tickets you opened. I already answered several times to those issues by e-mail.

I sincerely don't see what I can do more. 

Cheers,
Med

>De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Envoyé : jeudi 23 août 2012 21:33
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : [email-masked]
>Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03
>
>Hi Med,
>
>> A new version taking into account comments received during 
>the WGLC has been submitted. The main changes are:
>>
>> * change the title
>> * clarify the solution is generic for any 4-6-4 use case and 
>the solution has been designed with DS-Lite in mind
>> * add a note only IPv4-in-IPv6 encap is detailed in the 
>document but other tunnelling techniques may be defined in the future

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:59:10 -0500

Hi Med.

Please see inline.

> I'm ready to record in the document whatever the WG agrees to do. But as far as I know the solution which consists in encapsulating all multicast flows to the unicast AFTR has not been accepted by…

The 3rd paragraph in the introduction should reference
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemulticast-01

and I would like this be a normative reference.

Your evauation that follows paragraph 3 (with Points 1 and 2) are
quite biased and ill stated. As such it gives the impression of
Execution without trial?

In fact draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemulticast does have a much
better evaluation of the so-called avalanche problem.

Thank you for referring to this solution as DS-Lite environment. At
least it is DS-Lite environment and
draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03 is not.

> I sincerely don't see what I can do more.

I could not see anyplace where WG agreed on the changes you made,
basically pushed by one person.

Please show me where there was WG consensus to do the revisions that way?
Is this the solution draft for DS-Lite multicast in Softwire WG? I
think it is a solution draft for draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps, i.e.
for mboned.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:13:22 -0700

Hi

> and I would like this be a normative reference.

Why normative? You don't need to read your draft to implement this.

> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03 is not.

It is a perfectly fine solution for use in DS-Lite environments, and
scales better than encapsulating in unicast as you're suggesting.

> think it is a solution draft for draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps, i.e.

I see it as a solution for how to do multicast in DS-Lite. That it is a
more generic solution that has wider applicability is just a bonus.
I feel that mboned would have been a good place to do this work, but it
was in softwires charter to find a solution, and this is one.

I think mboned should review it to check if there are any issues with
the solution though. That is happening right now.

Stig

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:04:14 -0500

Hi all,

It came to my attention that some words below in this mail was offensive.

I apologize for the bad choice of the words.

Civility first.

Regards,

Behcet