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

I think one well-known address would be useful for routing and other
MANET protocols (autoconf).

I agree a set of addresses would be useful as well.

Anyone else?

Ian

On 5/19/06, Joe Macker <joseph.macker@nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> 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