Re: [MBONED] Question about multicast address to be used in documentation and example

On Oct 15, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:

>
> So, what happens in that documentation tool when you use
> some address from IPv4 multicast admin-scope or link-local scope ?
> After all, you will need to be able to use addresses from all  
> different
> scopes in examples, because of the example you are trying to make.
> eGLOB is just one of these scopes.

This would be like example.com - something you should never use.

There is no way to create a space like this in 239.0.0.0 AFAICT - too  
many people use too many
random pieces of it. (Or, to be more precise, we could do it, but we  
would never be able to enforce it.)

Is there a suitable range for examples in IPv6 ?

Regards
Marshall

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:21:42PM +0200, Maglione Roberta wrote:
>>
>>>>> But I guess assigning a specific multicast prefix would be good,
>>>
>>>> I suppose it's always helpful if people know that a particular
>>>> address is
>>>> reserved for documentation purposes and so cannot be part of a live
>>>> configuration.
>>>
>>
>>> My thinking was that the FIRST such range in eGLOP could be so
>>> reserved. Is a /24 sufficient?
>>
>> I think /24 would be fine for documentation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roberta
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:05 PM
>> To: Leo Vegoda
>> Cc: Stig Venaas; Maglione Roberta; mboned@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [MBONED] Question about multicast address to be used  
>> in documentation and example
>>
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2008 4:14, "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas@uninett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> I checked RFC3330, it proposes an IPv4 range to be used in
>>>>> documentation and
>>>>> example but only for unicast, I could not find an equivalent range
>>>>> for
>>>>> multicast. Does this range exist for multicast? Or should I remove
>>>>> the
>>>>> example from the draft?
>>>>
>>>> There is a draft draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt
>>>> proposing ASNs 64496 - 64511 for documentation. This is only a  
>>>> draft.
>>>> But if this is approved, then I guess you could use GLOP addresses
>>>> based on those for documentation :)
>>>
>>> In draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-03.txt we have marked that portion
>>> of the
>>> space for extending the AD-HOC range (section 9.2).
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>>
>>> I think that a /32 would be too small, and inconvenient as well.
>>
>> Marshall
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Leo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MBONED mailing list
>>> MBONED@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>>
>>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>>
>> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the  
>> persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have  
>> received the message in error, be informed that any use of the  
>> content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the  
>> sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions,  
>> please contact us by replying to webmaster@telecomitalia.it.
>>
>>        Thank you
>>
>>                                        www.telecomitalia.it
>> _______________________________________________
>> MBONED mailing list
>> MBONED@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>
> -- 
> ---
> Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com
> Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
> "The strategy is what you do, not what you write" - Wesley Clark
> "Vision without ressources is hallucination" - James L. Jones

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned