[dhcwg] RE: mboned: draft-jdurand-assign-addr-ipv6-multicast-dhcpv6-00 comments

Two technical issues on this draft (larger issues sent in separate
email):

1) One of the things that both the API and the MADCAP protocol provide
is
allocation of ranges (not "several", but a large number of addresses,
like
a block of 400).  This requirement came from applications which want a
larger range to use with things like 
a) hashing resource ids into groups (I can't remember the specific
examples here, but IANA often gets requests for blocks of space, and I
believe many of them are for this reason.  Dave Meyer can probably
correct me :),
b) assignment to areas inside virtual worlds (from customers in the DIS
industry), 
etc.  

These sorts of applications are also the ones most in need of IPv6
multicast instead of IPv4 multicast, and so the requirement is probably
even more compelling in IPv6.

2) Another thing that both the API and the MADCAP protocol provide is
the ability to enumerate scopes (specifically, human readable names for
them,
and TTLs/HopCounts to use with them).  The names for scopes are also
useful
in other contexts besides multicast address allocation.  (E.g., see
discussion of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shen-ipv6-nd-name-seq-options-
01.txt at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/139.htm, has also come
up in MMUSIC, etc.)  Hence this capability should be retained.

-Dave

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg