Re: You asked about multicast scope

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch@muada.com>wrote:

> On 28 Mar 2012, at 12:08 , Fred Baker wrote:
>
> >> I haven't read the spec yet, but isn't PCP supposed to work in the
> service provider run NAT64/CGN case, too? In that case, the multicasts need
> to escape out of the site or even organization to reach the service
> provider at least in the SOHO case. So this would be a scope just shy of
> global, maybe a new "service provider" scope?
>
> > I personally rarely use "zero configuration" and "service provider" in
> the same sentence...
>
> Am I understanding you correctly when I take that to mean that the admin
> (value 4) scope is appropriate because then the people running the
> multicast routing can determine exactly how far these packets travel?
>
> That makes sense, but there is one potential issue, that I think some
> people who are well-steeped in IPv6 multicast should look at: in this
> situation, the scope value 4 may need wider distribution than side-wide,
> which is scope 5. I can't find any documentation on whether that's ok or
> not between sessions right now, but I'm reluctant to assume that a lower
> scope value can have wider distribution than a higher one without having a
> spec that explicitly says so or hearing from some implementers.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Admin Scoped multicast defined on a per-
port, per-application basis?  That would suggest that some multicast group
addresses can (selectively) be forwarded through the CER uplink to the ISP.

-K-

Iljitsch
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>