IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 12:50 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 5E3E521F8615; Fri, 4 May 2012 05:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.08
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, 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 K0HJXoqU5pG5; Fri, 4 May 2012 05:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AAD21F860B; Fri, 4 May 2012 05:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AE3223B4439; Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.34]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 88B7E27C053; Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.233.200.25]) by PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.34]) with mapi; Fri, 4 May 2012 14:50:31 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "mboned-chairs@ietf.org" <mboned-chairs@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 14:50:29 +0200
Subject: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format
Thread-Index: Ac0p9HxleWTdQ5BUQkuVPrhA9CFoFw==
Message-ID: <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_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E299468D7PUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.5.4.121515
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format@tools.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: Fri, 04 May 2012 12:50:33 -0000

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