Re: Status of subnet-local multicast?
Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> Wed, 27 June 2012 18:47 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 01CB621F872D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 BBOnlTSrBf+w for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:13 -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 4FB9C21F85C5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1817760dac.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aohiJYXRRXGeElU98p2G3AJ7gfqKZ4up9tI/yAnUCaU=; b=UOYWiA3dWiLwHX/o+7jP2kdoAi5tjQzgEcKyUCAEHjfDxL6Lr5J7Pi3JkBSrQ/kdA9 +whsps5GpRNhDcIShQGlhsz/k83SwClKQqo2q1iqF22kzuGzBX2J6RudidhpMLj7QAV7 J8XgpgDpswNJ8qBySxHOqOMw6zvXmgPghlYidtthBV1DgZ4j8m1TShOTOURfStRjb6kf lTSC01p8vCoqMAnnVtpldM1UJLKWo5Hq47KpZBkjwV2/5lKeuo+cgd+msgprf7RE+m0e fGqEBTM6n9XXgzfBm1xmTpw/gfph76pIapF+BqwxgaEkCzpN5H6Z4jjaD8/koMdqdTct UPhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.241.228 with SMTP id wl4mr65990655pbc.51.1340822830560; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com
Received: by 10.142.47.11 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FEB487C.4060607@venaas.com>
References: <CABOxzu0PsnnV7iDrtrmn7Cj4RcL5_yUatNQszB-rzFJD_Ciu1A@mail.gmail.com> <4FEB487C.4060607@venaas.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:47:10 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cDJSet7b3SsReo2HYq9kWB5TvXA
Message-ID: <CABOxzu144y+6uxqqzi4k46HbhAHGJCK1D+97zUQvyBz6r8vBPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of subnet-local multicast?
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3395a785b5aa04c378a4b9"
Cc: 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:47:14 -0000
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote: > On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote: > >> 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<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? >> > > I've always been a bit curious why it got marked as reserved. It was > (unassigned) in RFC 2373, but reserved in RFC 3513. I don't remember > any discussion on this. > > It seems 4 admin-local would be appropriate then. Unless perhaps if 3 > is somehow reserved to allow for maybe future use like this... > > Perhaps it was originally discussed as an analog to IPv4 subnet broadcast, but that usage was later thought unnecessary. Hopefully an IPv6 historian will chime in... Thanks, -K- Stig > > >> Thanks, -K- >> >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ipv6<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- >> >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ipv6<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- >
- 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