Status of subnet-local multicast?
Kerry Lynn <kerlyn2001@gmail.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 17:13 UTC
Return-Path: <kerlyn2001@gmail.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 6530321F8653 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 KvB5N6PskCl9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C474E21F8650 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1713580dac.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=GjylEY0fjK8XTzPNlbkbsi3LXFHqOQ41mZmgaPveEu8=; b=T20xHrlQADC0uuTV+hjMpn+MLLA8RfRNBceW+HcH9asy0431gMVmKoHiHuG8dl+75v +nSf37KieQuHUFvy6vbMwzmcz5U83/HKwiExHEg9/AmJhDCRxpiyJS9uVHChFFfQ2QH7 4Av3ZBKlDLrxj2BBVam1EFaG8Z8AJdwxs7gXFA59ZLRmU5YJOTEYFUVCJrllRnY2NZhy 5itTruvSF4CJAco2b/RSwHK2Een4nYdDIOBDQtRFo8QOV7rbwCuCjavjwHMfCH/Fles6 FwP7ntuFza7ktGWIQbZncdDgk63dxOqS1puoAfE/pQ0AjRTDkzbhKRw40HAepeZCtqa3 kdqA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.225.42 with SMTP id rh10mr66625248pbc.116.1340817185475; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.47.11 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:13:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CABOxzu0PsnnV7iDrtrmn7Cj4RcL5_yUatNQszB-rzFJD_Ciu1A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Status of subnet-local multicast?
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn2001@gmail.com>
To: 6man 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff243c10c8dce04c3775478"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:44:50 -0700
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, 27 Jun 2012 17:13:06 -0000
Greetings, RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-local (0x03)" multicast scope, but later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved. Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one? I ask in the context of e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns where we need a scope greater than link-local in order to span a 6LoWPAN subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property "Each interface belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." for future site-local protocols that might include the 6LoWPAN router port. Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local scope available for use? Thanks, -K-
- Status of subnet-local multicast? Kerry Lynn
- Re: Status of subnet-local multicast? Stig Venaas
- Re: Status of subnet-local multicast? Kerry Lynn
- Re: Status of subnet-local multicast? Ralph Droms