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

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> I don’t know why IPv6 becomes more arcane with every new I-D. Why not work
> to make it simpler, rather than more complex and confusing, with every new
> iteration?
>

When you start with simplicity, experience will add complexity.

Regards
Marshall

>
>
> In this particular case, it is really confusing to change the location of
> this new field, 64IX, depending whether it’s ASM or SSM. And I might suggest
> to drop the 64IX nibble altogether. Use the remaining bit of the flgs field
> instead of the M bit of the 64IX field, and then allow for different
> combinations of the flgs bits for future codes?
>
>
>
> Bert
>
>
>
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: mboned-chairs@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: Brian Haberman;
> draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>