Return-Path: 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 In-Reply-To: <3042ADDB-95B9-4160-8BF1-F2E9E6C5A2A8@muada.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:31:07 +0200 Message-Id: References: <00B02ED4-4D6F-4B67-B548-D186C1B3B2CA@muada.com> <2AA4DD9C-DD38-422C-8483-FF295C086E11@cisco.com> <848F4FFF-2303-4E49-81CB-A0BD9180F31D@muada.com> <4F74447E.6020506@venaas.com> <4F74526D.6070003@innovationslab.net> <3042ADDB-95B9-4160-8BF1-F2E9E6C5A2A8@muada.com> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Brian Haberman , pcp@ietf.org, 6man 6man X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: >=20 >> It is not an assumption, it is stately quite clearly in the Scoped = Addressing Architecture (RFC 4007). =46rom Section 5 : >=20 >> 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. >=20 > Brian, Stig, thanks for the help. >=20 > 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. >=20 > That way, the clients can always use a fixed scope =3D fixed multicast = group, avoiding the need for discovery or configuration here. I don't think this is a service provider discussion.=