RE: [Manet-dt] Revivied discussion on MANET multicast addresses

Well since we put such a notion in the SMF draft I am a fan. 
I don't believe it needs to be one address. It could be a range of
administratively scoped addresses. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:ian.chakeres@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:12 PM
>To: Templin, Fred L
>Cc: manet-dt@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Revivied discussion on MANET multicast 
>addresses
>
>How do people feel about defining one "site" scoped multicast 
>for manet protocols? Please write with support or dissent.
>
>I think the semantics for these multicast messages would be 
>that MANET routers must not  forwarded these packets out 
>non-manet interfaces.
>
>Ian
>
>On 5/16/06, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, things don't seem quite so clear-cut in IPv4.
>>
>> Then again, there is the IPv4 "Administratively Scoped"
>> multicast block (239.0.0.0/8) and portions of that space are 
>> designated as "Site-Local Scope"; see RFC2365 and:
>>
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
>>
>> Fred
>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Manet-dt mailing list
>Manet-dt@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt
>

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
Manet-dt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt