IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> Wed, 17 May 2006 00:27 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fg9sT-0005He-ER; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:27:01 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fg9sS-0005HZ-CU for manet-dt@ietf.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:27:00 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fg9pC-0002MB-QS for manet-dt@ietf.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:23:38 -0400
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.191]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fg9du-000632-Es for manet-dt@ietf.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:11:59 -0400
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id x30so70162nfb for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kCOS1KN8Zj2D6eKmtqdDDgs03/ut9X70I3d4awyRWsqajyec6zC2i5caMcqkSpCidx7FAvayx+i8hkcCQbSdjZGGH5yj70TDTMxReKJRTZUVXTgaQvcP3z1c0sRue5YJLkP4VnLH69hrc/W4lbZDZZowkpYzRGFxeAKuipMNfLk=
Received: by 10.49.6.9 with SMTP id j9mr275339nfi; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.72.3 with HTTP; Tue, 16 May 2006 17:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <374005f30605161711x15b2d250v941a8d5b2eb48273@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:11:57 -0700
From: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Revivied discussion on MANET multicast addresses
In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818C28@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818C26@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1818C28@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email