draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-02.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-03.txt 
MBONED Working Group C. Jacquenet MBONED Working Group C. Jacquenet
Internet-Draft M. Boucadair Internet-Draft M. Boucadair
Intended status: Informational France Telecom Orange Intended status: Informational France Telecom Orange
Expires: September 14, 2013 Y. Lee Expires: December 07, 2013 Y. Lee
Comcast Comcast
J. Qin J. Qin
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
T. Tsou T. Tsou
Huawei Technologies (USA) Huawei Technologies (USA)
Q. Sun Q. Sun
China Telecom China Telecom
March 13, 2013 June 05, 2013
IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement and Use Cases IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement and Use Cases
draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-02 draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-03
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses issues and requirements raised by IPv4-IPv6 This document discusses issues and requirements raised by IPv4-IPv6
multicast interconnection and co-existence scenarios. It also multicast interconnection and co-existence scenarios. It also
discusses various multicast use cases which may occur during IPv6 discusses various multicast use cases which may occur during IPv6
transitioning. transitioning.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 07, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Organization of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Organization of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Scope and Service Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Scope and Service Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Service Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Service Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. IPv4 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv6-Only 3.1. IPv4 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv6-Only
Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. IPv6 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv4-Only 3.2. IPv6 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv4-Only
Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. IPv6 Receiver and IPv4 Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. IPv6 Receiver and IPv4 Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. IPv4 Receiver and IPv6 Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. IPv4 Receiver and IPv6 Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Group and Source Discovery Considerations . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Group and Source Discovery Considerations . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Multicast Tree Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. Multicast Tree Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Multicast Adaptation Functions (AF) . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4. Multicast Adaptation Functions (AF) . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.1. AF For Control Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4.1. AF For Control Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.2. AF For Data Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4.2. AF For Data Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.3. Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4.3. Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5. Combination of ASM and SSM Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.5. Combination of ASM and SSM Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Global IPv4 address depletion inevitably challenges service providers Global IPv4 address depletion inevitably challenges service providers
who must guarantee IPv4 service continuity during the forthcoming who must guarantee IPv4 service continuity during the forthcoming
transition period. In particular, access to IPv4 contents that are transition period. In particular, access to IPv4 contents that are
multicast to IPv4 receivers becomes an issue when the forwarding of multicast to IPv4 receivers becomes an issue when the forwarding of
multicast data assumes the use of global IPv4 addresses. multicast data assumes the use of global IPv4 addresses.
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
This document uses the following terms: This document uses the following terms:
o Multicast Source: Source of contents that are multicast to o Multicast Source: Source of contents that are multicast to
receivers. A video streaming server is an example of such source. receivers. A video streaming server is an example of such source.
o Multicast Receiver: Receiver, in short. A Set Top Box (STB) is an o Multicast Receiver: Receiver, in short. A Set Top Box (STB) is an
example of such receiver. example of such receiver.
o Multicast Delivery Network: Network in short, covers the realm o Multicast Delivery Network: Network in short, covers the realm
from Designated Routers that are directly connected to sources to from First Hop Routers that are directly connected to sources to
IGMP/MLD (Internet Group Management Protocol/Multicast Listener IGMP/MLD (Internet Group Management Protocol/Multicast Listener
Discovery) Querier devices that process IGMP/MLD signalling Discovery) Querier devices that process IGMP/MLD signalling
traffic exchanged with receivers. traffic exchanged with receivers.
1.2. Organization of the Document 1.2. Organization of the Document
This document is organized as follows: This document is organized as follows:
o Section 2 details basic requirements that should be addressed by o Section 2 details basic requirements that should be addressed by
providers involved in the delivery of multicast-based services providers involved in the delivery of multicast-based services
skipping to change at page 5, line 26 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
network is IP multicast-enabled. That is, whatever the IP address network is IP multicast-enabled. That is, whatever the IP address
family of the content, this content will be multicast along family of the content, this content will be multicast along
distribution trees that should be terminated as close to the distribution trees that should be terminated as close to the
receivers as possible for the sake of bandwidth optimization. In receivers as possible for the sake of bandwidth optimization. In
other words, considerations about forwarding multicast traffic other words, considerations about forwarding multicast traffic
over unicast-only (access) networks are out of the scope of this over unicast-only (access) networks are out of the scope of this
document. document.
Multicast to the receivers, not from the receivers: This document Multicast to the receivers, not from the receivers: This document
only covers the case where multicast traffic is forwarded by the only covers the case where multicast traffic is forwarded by the
service provider network to the receivers. This document does not service provider network to the receivers. The draft does not
cover the case where the receivers send multicast traffic to the consider multicast services that assume a source/receiver
network. heuristic, e.g., videoconferencing services. The draft primarily
focuses on residential multicast-based services, as per a typical
1:n group communication scheme.
2.2. Service Requirements 2.2. Service Requirements
The delivery of multicast contents during the forthcoming transition The delivery of multicast contents during the forthcoming transition
period needs to address the following requirements. Note that some period needs to address the following requirements. Note that some
of these requirements are not necessarily specific to the IPv4-to- of these requirements are not necessarily specific to the IPv4-to-
IPv6 transition context, but rather apply to a wide range of IPv6 transition context, but rather apply to a wide range of
multicast-based services whatever the environmental constraints, but multicast-based services whatever the environmental constraints, but
the forthcoming transition period further stresses these requirements the forthcoming transition period further stresses these requirements
(see Section 4.4.1 for more details). (see Section 4.4.1 for more details).
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
dimensioning issues that should be carefully evaluated by service dimensioning issues that should be carefully evaluated by service
providers during network planning operations. For instance, if providers during network planning operations. For instance, if
only few IPv6-enabled receivers are in use, it can be more only few IPv6-enabled receivers are in use, it can be more
convenient to convey multicast traffic over IPv4 rather than convenient to convey multicast traffic over IPv4 rather than
doubling the consumed resources for few users. IPv4/IPv6 co- doubling the consumed resources for few users. IPv4/IPv6 co-
existence solutions should be designed to optimize network existence solutions should be designed to optimize network
resource utilization. resource utilization.
o Zap rapidly. The time it takes to switch from one content to o Zap rapidly. The time it takes to switch from one content to
another must be as short as possible. For example, zapping times another must be as short as possible. For example, zapping times
between two TV channels should be in the magnitude of a few between two TV channels should be comparable to an IPv4 case,
seconds at most, whatever the conditions to access the multicast i.e., less than a second so that translation does not
network. A procedure called "IGMP fast-leave" is sometimes used significantly affect the overhead, whatever the conditions to
to minimize this issue so that the corresponding multicast stream access the multicast network. A procedure called "IGMP fast-
is stopped as soon as the IGMP Leave message is received by the leave" is sometimes used to minimize this issue so that the
Querier. In current deployments, IGMP fast-leave often assumes corresponding multicast stream is stopped as soon as the IGMP
the activation of the IGMP Proxy function in DSLAMs. The Leave message is received by the Querier. In current deployments,
complexity of such design is aggravated within a context where IGMP fast-leave often assumes the activation of the IGMP Proxy
IPv4 multicast control messages are encapsulated in IPv6. function in DSLAMs. The complexity of such design is aggravated
within a context where IPv4 multicast control messages are
encapsulated in IPv6.
o Preserve the integrity of contents. Some contract agreements may o Preserve the integrity of contents that the user sees, i.e., not
prevent a service provider from altering the content owned by the the contents of IP packets. Some contract agreements may prevent
content provider, because of copyright, confidentiality and SLA a service provider from altering the content owned by the content
assurance reasons. Multicast streams should be delivered without provider, because of copyright, confidentiality and SLA assurance
altering their content. reasons. Multicast streams should be delivered without altering
their content.
o Preserve service quality. Crossing a CGN or performing multicast o Preserve service quality. Crossing a CGN or performing multicast
packet encapsulation may lead to fragmentation or extra delays and packet encapsulation may lead to fragmentation or extra delays and
may therefore impact the perceived quality of service. Such may therefore impact the perceived quality of service. Such
degradation must be avoided. degradation must be avoided.
o Optimize IPv4-IPv6 inter-working design. In some operational o Optimize IPv4-IPv6 inter-working design. In some operational
networks, a source-based stateful NAT function is sometimes used networks, a source-based stateful NAT function is sometimes used
for load balancing purposes, for example. Because of the for load balancing purposes, for example. Because of the
operational issues raised by such a stateful design, the operational issues raised by such a stateful design, the
skipping to change at page 6, line 48 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
IPv6 receivers. Because of the inevitable combination of different IPv6 receivers. Because of the inevitable combination of different
IP version-related environments (sources, receivers and networks), IP version-related environments (sources, receivers and networks),
service providers should carefully plan and choose the appropriate service providers should carefully plan and choose the appropriate
technique that will optimize the network resources to deliver technique that will optimize the network resources to deliver
multicast-based services. multicast-based services.
Concretely, several use cases can be considered during the IPv4/ IPv6 Concretely, several use cases can be considered during the IPv4/ IPv6
co-existence period. Some of them are depicted in the following sub- co-existence period. Some of them are depicted in the following sub-
sections. sections.
Note that the following diagrams are meant to illustrate the
conceptual model. As such, they do not necessarily mean that the
Adaptation Functions (AF) are embedded in a separate device and that
messages need to be explicitly translated into new messages.
3.1. IPv4 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv6-Only Network 3.1. IPv4 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv6-Only Network
We refer to this scenario as 4-6-4. An example of such use case is a We refer to this scenario as 4-6-4. An example of such use case is a
DS-Lite environment, where customers will share global IPv4 DS-Lite environment, where customers will share global IPv4
addresses. IPv4 receivers are connected to CPE devices that are addresses. IPv4 receivers are connected to CPE devices that are
provisioned with an IPv6 prefix only. Delivering multicast content provisioned with an IPv6 prefix only. Delivering multicast content
sent by an IPv4 source to such receivers requires the activation of sent by an IPv4 source to such receivers requires the activation of
some adaptation functions (AFs). These may operate at the network some adaptation functions (AFs). These may operate at the network
layer (interworking functions (IWF) or at the application layer layer (interworking functions (IWF) or at the application layer
(application level gateways (ALGs)). (application level gateways (ALGs)).
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at page 13, line 13
BG : Border Gateway BG : Border Gateway
Src : Multicast source Src : Multicast source
Figure 8: Multicast Traffic Forwarding Path For the 4-6 Scenario. Figure 8: Multicast Traffic Forwarding Path For the 4-6 Scenario.
3.5. Summary 3.5. Summary
To summarize, the use cases of highest priority are those involving To summarize, the use cases of highest priority are those involving
IPv4 sources, i.e., the 4-6-4 and 6-4 scenarios. IPv4 sources, i.e., the 4-6-4 and 6-4 scenarios.
4. Design Considerations 4. Design Requirements
4.1. Group and Source Discovery Considerations 4.1. Group and Source Discovery Considerations
Multicast applications that embed address information in the payload Multicast applications that embed address information in the payload
may require Application Level Gateway (ALG) during the transition may require Application Level Gateway (ALG) during the transition
period. An ALG is application-specific by definition, and may period. An ALG is application-specific by definition, and may
therefore be unnecessary depending on the nature of the multicast therefore be unnecessary depending on the nature of the multicast
service. service.
Such ALG (Application Level Gateway) may also be required to help an Such ALG (Application Level Gateway) may also be required to help an
skipping to change at page 13, line 46 skipping to change at page 14, line 8
address would then require multicast flows to cross an IPv4-IPv6 address would then require multicast flows to cross an IPv4-IPv6
interworking function. interworking function.
The receiver should therefore be able to unambiguously distinguish an The receiver should therefore be able to unambiguously distinguish an
IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast address from a native IPv6 multicast IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast address from a native IPv6 multicast
address. address.
4.2. Subscription 4.2. Subscription
Multicast distribution trees are receiver-initiated. IPv4 receivers Multicast distribution trees are receiver-initiated. IPv4 receivers
that want to subscribe to an IPv4 multicast group will send the that want to subscribe to an IPv4 multicast group will send IGMP
corresponding IGMP Report message towards the relevant IGMP Querier. Report messages accordingly. In case the underlying access network
In case the underlying access network is IPv6, the information is IPv6, the information conveyed in IGMP messages should be relayed
conveyed in IGMP messages should be relayed by corresponding MLD by corresponding MLD messages.
messages.
4.3. Multicast Tree Computation 4.3. Multicast Tree Computation
Grafting to an IPv4 multicast distribution tree through an IPv6 Grafting to an IPv4 multicast distribution tree through an IPv6
multicast domain suggests that IPv4 multicast traffic will have to be multicast domain suggests that IPv4 multicast traffic will have to be
conveyed along an "IPv6-equivalent" multicast distribution tree. conveyed along an "IPv6-equivalent" multicast distribution tree.
That is, part of the multicast distribution tree along which IPv4 That is, part of the multicast distribution tree along which IPv4
multicast traffic will be forwarded should be computed and maintained multicast traffic will be forwarded should be computed and maintained
by means of the PIMv6 machinery, so that the distribution tree can be by means of the PIMv6 machinery, so that the distribution tree can be
terminated as close to the IPv4 receivers as possible for the sake of terminated as close to the IPv4 receivers as possible for the sake of
skipping to change at page 15, line 17 skipping to change at page 15, line 31
design (e.g., this device could be a PIM DR in addition to a MLD design (e.g., this device could be a PIM DR in addition to a MLD
Querier). Querier).
The IWF can then be operated in the following modes: IGMP-MLD, The IWF can then be operated in the following modes: IGMP-MLD,
PIMv4-PIMv6, MLD-PIMv4 and IGMP-PIMv6. In particular, Source- PIMv4-PIMv6, MLD-PIMv4 and IGMP-PIMv6. In particular, Source-
Specific Multicast (SSM) must be supported (i.e., IGMPv3/MLDv2 Specific Multicast (SSM) must be supported (i.e., IGMPv3/MLDv2
signalling traffic as well as the ability to directly send PIM (S, G) signalling traffic as well as the ability to directly send PIM (S, G)
Join messages towards the source). Join messages towards the source).
The following sub-sections describe some interworking functions which The following sub-sections describe some interworking functions which
may be solicited, depending on the environment. may be solicited, depending on the environment. Note that it may not
be a stand-alone IWF that simply translates messages, but, for
example, the combination of IPv4 and IPv6 states that would trigger
the forwarding of aggregated MLD Report messages upstream that would
include IPv6 groups based upon IPv4 states.
4.4.1.1. IGMP-MLD Interworking 4.4.1.1. IGMP-MLD Interworking
The IGMP-MLD Interworking Function combines the IGMP/MLD Proxying The IGMP-MLD Interworking Function combines the IGMP/MLD Proxying
function specified in [RFC4605] and the IGMP/MLD adaptation function function specified in [RFC4605] and the IGMP/MLD adaptation function
which is meant to reflect the contents of IGMP messages into MLD which is meant to reflect the contents of IGMP messages into MLD
messages, and vice versa. messages, and vice versa.
For example, when an IGMP Report message is received to subscribe to For example, when an IGMP Report message is received to subscribe to
a given multicast group (which may be associated to a source address a given multicast group (which may be associated to a source address
skipping to change at page 16, line 24 skipping to change at page 16, line 43
encapsulation/de-capsulation or translation modes can be enforced, encapsulation/de-capsulation or translation modes can be enforced,
depending on the design. Note that translation operations must depending on the design. Note that translation operations must
follow the algorithm specified in [RFC6145]. follow the algorithm specified in [RFC6145].
4.4.3. Address Mapping 4.4.3. Address Mapping
The address mapping mechanisms to be used in either a stateful or The address mapping mechanisms to be used in either a stateful or
stateless fashion need to be specified for the translation from one stateless fashion need to be specified for the translation from one
address family to the other. address family to the other.
The address formats have been defined in The address formats can be those defined in
[I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format] and [RFC6052] for [I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format] and [RFC6052] for
IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast and unicast addresses. Mapping IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast and unicast addresses. Mapping
operations are performed in a stateless manner by the algorithms operations are performed in a stateless manner by the algorithms
specified in the aforementioned documents. specified in the aforementioned documents.
In this context, the IPv6 prefixes required for embedding IPv4 In this context, the IPv6 prefixes required for embedding IPv4
addresses can be assigned to devices that support IWF features by addresses can be assigned to devices that support IWF features by
various means (e.g., static or dynamic configuration, out-of-band various means (e.g., static or dynamic configuration, out-of-band
mechanisms, etc.). mechanisms, etc.).
skipping to change at page 17, line 11 skipping to change at page 17, line 30
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request to IANA. This document makes no request to IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC. RFC.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Access to contents in a multicast-enabled environment raises Access to contents in a multicast-enabled environment raises
different security issues that have been already documented. This different security issues that have been already documented. In
draft does not introduce any specific security issue. particular:
o When translating ASM-SSM there are certain security expectations
from SSM (only receiving from the single specified sender), which
are not the same expectations that come from ASM.
o If mappings are not stateful, it may be harder to monitor and
troubleshoot the traffic.
o There are concepts of IPv4 and IPv6 multicast scopes. When
translating, it must be taken into account how to reasonably map
between scopes, and it is important that the scopes are configured
appropriately on the routers so that a scope intended to be within
a site for IPv4 (for example), doesn't leak outside the site due
to translation to IPv6 inside the site.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to T. Taylor for providing the figures and some of Special thanks to T. Taylor for providing the figures and some of the
the text that illustrate the use cases depicted in Section 3. Thanks text that illustrate the use cases depicted in Section 3. Thanks
also to H. Asaeda, M. Blanchet, M. Eubanks, N. Leymann, S. also to H. Asaeda, M. Blanchet, M. Eubanks, B. Haberman, N. Leymann,
Perrault and S. Venaas for their valuable comments and support. S. Perrault and S. Venaas for their valuable comments and support.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2236] Fenner, W.C., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997. 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002. 3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific [RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
skipping to change at page 18, line 7 skipping to change at page 18, line 40
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format] [I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format]
Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Lee, Y., Venaas, S., Li, X., and Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Lee, Y., Venaas, S., Li, X., and
M. Xu, "IPv6 Multicast Address With Embedded IPv4 M. Xu, "IPv6 Multicast Address With Embedded IPv4
Multicast Address", draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast- Multicast Address", draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-
address-format-04 (work in progress), August 2012. address-format-05 (work in progress), April 2013.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010. October 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Christian Jacquenet Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom Orange France Telecom Orange
4 rue du Clos Courtel 4 rue du Clos Courtel
Cesson-Sevigne 35512 Cesson-Sevigne 35512
France France
Phone: +33 2 99 12 43 82 Phone: +33 2 99 12 43 82
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Mohamed Boucadair Mohamed Boucadair
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
49 lines changed or deleted 75 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/