Re: You asked about multicast scope

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 846CE21E8082; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 ONWmINEC-KkN; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC0221E801F; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1069; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1333056674; x=1334266274; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y92Sah817gY/LhuwhElPkN5uduQx8daL4nB9DW1riII=; b=gpBrOTbJ6dJltPNM1sasHzIg74PItp2bHq6IpD8PlILzjjjvqG8ueh3O vUOuLGMU7/WMIx/sUUT4uaTHRyFLeNtISxyFdwAuXlOI+VyVKxzdqX8P8 DQT810DNNY6peaw7Km4RzFEwyY/zy7biaLt9kh0g/3OMkMm3bVcUosPG+ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAIHTdE+Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABCuSWBB4IJAQEBAwESASc/BQsLEgYuSQ4GNYdjBZ9Tlz+QKmMElWGFcIhWgWiCaQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,339,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="69692796"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2012 21:31:08 +0000
Received: from dhcp-478d.meeting.ietf.org (ams3-vpn-dhcp4703.cisco.com [10.61.82.94]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2TLQWuE023974; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:31:08 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by dhcp-478d.meeting.ietf.org (PGP Universal service); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:31:08 +0200
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by dhcp-478d.meeting.ietf.org on Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:31:08 +0200
Subject: Re: You asked about multicast scope
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3042ADDB-95B9-4160-8BF1-F2E9E6C5A2A8@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:31:07 +0200
Message-Id: <AD4972E1-3FB0-4330-86DD-ED503A3567A2@cisco.com>
References: <FF493C74-28AA-4B3D-ABBA-38294010230F@cisco.com> <BEEE8260-1AC5-41C9-A9D7-EFF1CCF5CBB4@muada.com> <DA8DC604-C36C-4D59-931A-B7C22F8E2051@cisco.com> <00B02ED4-4D6F-4B67-B548-D186C1B3B2CA@muada.com> <2AA4DD9C-DD38-422C-8483-FF295C086E11@cisco.com> <848F4FFF-2303-4E49-81CB-A0BD9180F31D@muada.com> <CABOxzu0yC6Y4gFXKACDSdAy+GNzWGZStjpVMUB5HWXjBoXKUxw@mail.gmail.com> <4F74447E.6020506@venaas.com> <4F74526D.6070003@innovationslab.net> <3042ADDB-95B9-4160-8BF1-F2E9E6C5A2A8@muada.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, pcp@ietf.org, 6man 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:31:15 -0000

On Mar 29, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2012, at 14:15 , Brian Haberman wrote:
> 
>> It is not an assumption, it is stately quite clearly in the Scoped Addressing Architecture (RFC 4007).  From Section 5 :
> 
>>     A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely within
>>     zones of larger scope.  That is, a smaller scope zone cannot
>>     include more topology than would any larger scope zone with which
>>     it shares any links or interfaces.
> 
> Brian, Stig, thanks for the help.
> 
> Fred: I think what would be best is to define a "service provider" scope that is smaller than global, and larger than organization. These would be defined to be forwarded to ISPs by default, although organizations that don't want that can always filter them at the desired boundary.
> 
> That way, the clients can always use a fixed scope = fixed multicast group, avoiding the need for discovery or configuration here.

I don't think this is a service provider discussion.