IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MBONED] An alternative to draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format?

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Thu, 28 June 2012 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E8411E80D0 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 DJXTvxAYUVis for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BF511E80C6 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-234.cisco.com [128.107.239.234]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87E047FF0 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:57:04 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4FECD32D.30403@venaas.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:57:01 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [MBONED] An alternative to draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format?
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:57:06 -0000

The draft draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format specifies as you
know, a new flag to indicate that an IPv4 multicast address is embedded.
This is useful for translators (and maybe other devices) that can then
extract the IPv4 address and doing operations as needed on that address.

I would like to present a possible alternative, and hear your thoughts.
What if instead, when the group address is specified in a PIM join, or
an MLD report, there was a flag as part of the PIM/MLD message that
indicated that an IPv4 address is embedded?

A new draft describing this is available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-mboned-64mcast-embedded-address-00

What do you think? Might this be an alternative? Are there other
cases (apart from receiving a PIM join or an MLD report), where we
need to know that an IPv4 address is embedded in the group address?

Stig

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email