Re: RFC 3306 question
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 10 August 2011 13:53 UTC
Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 8CED321F8A1A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 zfllefpnp1jo for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B6821F89A7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94FE88214 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local (unknown [75.94.92.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B91130002 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E428D83.4060501@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:54:11 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 3306 question
References: <CABOxzu1MYxEW_1O1AQP91xgw2TT81-_=6YAKhsMW=4Y142tiyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABOxzu1MYxEW_1O1AQP91xgw2TT81-_=6YAKhsMW=4Y142tiyg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 10 Aug 2011 13:53:45 -0000
On 8/9/11 5:51 PM, Kerry Lynn wrote: > RFC 3306 states: > > > "The scope of the unicast-prefix based multicast address MUST NOT > exceed the scope of the unicast prefix embedded in the multicast > address." > > > I'd just like to verify my interpretation that site-local multicast addresses > > MAY be formed from ULA prefixes? If so, should a particular value Yes, there is no issue with using a ULA prefix to form a unicast-prefix based multicast address with site-local scope. > > (e.g. 0x0000) be used as the subnet ID portion of the prefix? > What you use in the subnet portion of the ULA is really up to your use case. Regards, Brian
- RFC 3306 question Kerry Lynn
- Re: RFC 3306 question Sander Steffann
- Re: RFC 3306 question Brian Haberman
- Re: RFC 3306 question Tim Chown