Subject: Re: v6-in-v4 configured tunneling over v4 multicast (vs 6over4)

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:11:40 +0200

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 04:57:21PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:47:46AM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > 
> > Since this is an operational WG, have we received requests from folks operating
> > IPv6 that they are running into this particular problem? 
> 
> We operate IPv4 and IPv6 multicast.   If we want bridging between the two
> protocols we use Stig's gateway (which sadly wasn't adopted by the mboned
> WG, despite evidence of its utility).

Thanks for the plug Tim. I wrote a draft on a gateway translating
between IPv4 and IPv6 multicast. It's expired now, but you can find it
at
http://www.uninett.no/testnett/multicast/mcgw/draft-venaas-mboned-v4v6mcastgw-00.txt

This solution was implemented 18 months ago, and has been in daily use
by several people since then.

Is there any interest in working in this area in v6ops? I know several
people that are interested in the solution and would like to see it
properly documented. There was some related work in ngtrans, see the
expired draft-ietf-ngtrans-mtp-03.txt. IMHO my solution is better.
Are there more appropriate places to take it?

Stig

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:01:24 +0200

> Are there more appropriate places to take it?

I also support seeing this work, just like Teredo, DSTM and the others,
to be properly documented and archived. There are many users of these
mechanisms and they are very useful. Google should not be the way to
search for them...

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: "William F. Maton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:19:10 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Stig Venaas wrote:

[snip]
> by several people since then.
[snip]
> Are there more appropriate places to take it?

As someone who is interested in both IPv6 and multicast, yes, this would 
be good to see in a document.  This group might be the best place for it. 
Though I wonder why mboned didn't do anything with it...

wfms

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:20:18 +0100

I, of course as a user of it, agree also.

It's a shame mboned didn't want to pick it up.  I don't understand why.
Failing that, lets do the work here.

Tim

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:49:50 +0200

> Failing that, lets do the work here.

If I remember correctly they simply thought it would be better to have
the work done here.

I think it would be good to document the solution as an informational
RFC. Both describing how it can be done, and also possible issues that
one should be aware of.

Stig

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:52:35 +0100

OK, that's good.  Subject line made more relevant...