Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-03.txt

Hi Tim,

On 8/21/2012 Tuesday 6:39 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> ..
> .
>> Why?
>> As far as I understand, the issue here is to use which bit in the
>> reserved field, Tim suggested the rightmost and your proposal uses the
>> leftmost.
>> RFC3946 solves this problem by redefining rsvd field as 4 bits instead
>> of 8 bits in RFC 3306, i.e. it updates 3306 which is already stated in
>> there.
> Can't we just say 3306 is updated by this new text, if it is approved?  We may not need to change 3306.
Agree.

>
> I think the same applies to RFcC3956 too, as bits 17-20 are reserved, and you're using those.  Actually also nteresting to read Appendix A of that RFC ;)
I guess we won't need a "RFC3956 updated", since Appendix A just says, "

    Instead of using flags bits ("FF70::/12"), one could have used the
    leftmost reserved bits instead ("FF3x:8000::/17").
"

and doesn't say anything about the 4bit rsvd elsewhere.

Or I misunderstand it?

Cheers,
Jacni

>> Maybe in this draft we can say that we use RFC 3946 definition of the
>> reserved field.
>>
>> BTW, in Teemu Kiviniemi's thesis on Implementation of an IPv4 to IPv6 Multicast
>> Translator
>> ASM prefix: ff7e:140:2001:db8:ab:cd::/96
>> is used, which matches Tim's suggestion :-).
> Not quite, the above is ff7e:0140....
>> This is the SSM prefix: ff3e::/96 that is used.
> BTW, Stig had a v4/v6 multicast translator runnng ten years ago, worked quite well!
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
>> Behcet
>> _______________________________________________
>> MBONED mailing list
>> MBONED@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>