IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 23 May 2012 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224C621F84DF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 06:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W42UpGK4yZau for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 06:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0532321F8460 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 06:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6A41A18C4D4; Wed, 23 May 2012 15:20:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.28]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4FBE435C048; Wed, 23 May 2012 15:20:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.28]) with mapi; Wed, 23 May 2012 15:20:52 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:20:50 +0200
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format
Thread-Index: Ac0p9HxleWTdQ5BUQkuVPrhA9CFoFwO8bNDA
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E2B9B5493@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E299468D7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E299468D7@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E2B9B5493PUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.5.23.113319
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:20:54 -0000

Dear all,

Many thanks for the individuals who read the draft and provided some comment.

My read of the the answers received in this thread is there is no strong reasons to question the design choices as documented in the draft.

FWIW, I just submitted a updated version taking into account the comments received during the IETF LC:

* Editorial changes as suggested in SM's review
* Title change (comment from C. Bormann)
* Added a new section to describe the algorithm to embed/extract the IPv4 address (comment from C. Bormann)
* Added some pointers to documents making use of the address format (comment from C. Bormann)
* Added an appendix to explain why an M-bit is needed (comment from C. Bormann)
* Added an appendix to explain why an address format is needed (comment from C. Bormann)
* Added examples of means to provision the MPREFIX64 (comment from C. Bormann)

Diff from previous version:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-02

Cheers,
Med

________________________________
De : ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Envoyé : vendredi 4 mai 2012 14:50
À : mboned-chairs@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org
Cc : Brian Haberman; draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format@tools.ietf.org
Objet : draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format


Dear all,

During the IETF LC for draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format, Brian suggested to use the remaining flag instead of reserving ff3x:0:8000/33 (SSM) and ffxx:8000/17 (ASM) blocks. FYI, we have considered that approach in an early version of the document but it has been abandoned because of comments we received at that time. We recorded the rationale behind our design choice in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01#appendix-A.2.

We are seeking more feedback from 6man and mboned on the following:

(1) Should we maintain the current design choice
(2) Or adopt the suggestion from Brian?

FWIW, discussion related to this issue can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01508.html.
The latest version of the draft is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01

Your help is appreciated.

Cheers,
Med

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email