Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-03.txt
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 20 August 2012 05:58 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 9D78621F8646 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.033
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BG9a1LMMU-TU for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BEC21F8643 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A5A492647D2; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:58:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8835835C048; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:58:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:58:29 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "sarikaya@ieee.org" <sarikaya@ieee.org>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:58:29 +0200
Thread-Topic: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac18rWuy/+BxsNfYSk+GxR5/giu0uwB6d3lg
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E512B4526@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <E3FAB1F4F41F3A45B287E8D9C53522FD379D374F@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com> <502AFECA.1090905@venaas.com> <2B337C44-D16B-49BD-9347-901F6107A239@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|1c3fd9d33484c5343b2d7337b5211574o7G0Be03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|2B337C44-D16B-49BD-9347-901F6107A239@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <502E8819.5030901@venaas.com> <CAC8QAccRXZW=TUw3-6NSrOVy+t-iv9aqBGHzSP3tQw9_LD_S5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAccRXZW=TUw3-6NSrOVy+t-iv9aqBGHzSP3tQw9_LD_S5g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.8.20.50040
Cc: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-03.txt
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:58:51 -0000
Hi Behcet, There is a real value to ensure compatibility with unicast based and embedded-RP for ASM. As pointed by T. Chown this would require to update rfc3306 but I don't think this is problematic. Now for Stig's Idea to reserve an additional /96 prefix (for ASM, T=0), we need more feedback from the WG. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : mboned-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] >De la part de Behcet Sarikaya >Envoyé : vendredi 17 août 2012 21:21 >À : Stig Venaas >Cc : mboned@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [MBONED] >draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-03.txt > >On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote: >> Hi Tim >> >> >> On 8/16/2012 4:12 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >>> >>> On 15 Aug 2012, at 02:43, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14.08.2012 14:43, Lee, Yiu wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Stig, >>>>> >>>>> Since we want T=1, this will not meet the "well-known" requirement >>>>> defined >>>>> in RFC4291. If we don't want to define a flag, what is >the proper way to >>>>> describe ffxx:8000::/20 and ffxx:0:8000::/96? >>>> >>>> >>>> You could list them for all values of xx perhaps. I would maybe use >>>> "x" and "y" and then discuss the allowed values. >>>> >>>> There are scope relative allocations today, the main thing >is that we >>>> don't want to require the flags to be "0". Or maybe we >want to require >>>> the T-bit to be set. As I wrote earlier, I would think of these >>>> addresses as transient, and T=1 is required for Embedded-RP etc. >>>> >>>> The issue though is that if T=1, then it is not really an IANA >>>> allocation as I see it, because IANA allocations have T=0. >But if there >>>> is IETF consensus, then one can still reserve these prefixes. >>> >>> >>> I agree with Stig; there are multiple prefixes being reserved here. >>> >>> The text is effectively updating both RFC3306 and RFC3956 >since the above >>> prefix is setting a bit in the reserved bit range of both those >>> specifications. RFC3306 also says all those reserved bits >(17-24) must be >>> zero, while RFC3956 doesn't explicitly say that for bits >17-20 (it probably >>> should, if you're now using one of those bits). >> >> >> You're right about 3306. I wonder now if instead of practically >> reserving a specific value for the entire nibble of remaining >> reserved bits in 3306, it would be better to reserve just one of >> the bits. I don't think it updates 3956, because it doesn't talk >> about those bits at all, AFAICT. >> >> >>> Both RFCs say that if R or P flags are set, then T must be >set too, so I'm >>> not sure you have freedom to say "if T=1" if you want to >support those two >>> methods. >> >> >> Yes, that's why I've been saying that we can't just get an IANA >> allocation. We need T=1 for this to work, and IANA is allocating >> ASM with T=0. >> >> >>> Finally, it may make more sense to use ffxx:1000::/20 for >ASM, and thus >>> only use the rightmost bit of the four reserved bits (for >RFC3956 at least)? >> >> >> Yes, but it would mean that if in the future one wants to use a >> new reserved bit for another purpose, then it won't work for >> this purpose. I like the idea of using a single bit actually. >> >> So here is an alternative proposal. Do you think it's better? >> >> 1. Update 3306 and give a new meaning to one of the remaining >> reserved bits. >> >> 2. Get a /96 for ASM from IANA (which would have T=0). >> >> The first would allow for 3306 and 3956 addressing, which I >> think is useful. >> >> The second would allow for uses where people don't care for >> that other type of addressing, and may also be useful if you >> want to use more or less fixed addresses, that does not use >> any particular unicast address. >> >> The alternative of just getting a /96 for ASM from IANA is >> in draft-kumar-mboned-64mcast-wkp-address-00.txt. >> >> I guess just doing IANA assignments and reserving a bit >> from 3306 are slightly separate problems, with different >> issues and uses. >> >> Finally, we also need a /96 for SSM. That can't just be >> an IANA assignment either. One interesting thing here is >> maybe that SSM is based on 3306 with plen and prefix set >> to 0. So if a bit is reserved (from 3306), then I think >> it would technically apply to SSM as well. But the SSM >> implementations I've seen (as well as a couple of RFCs) >> assume that these reserved bits are all 0. Not ignored >> as they should have been... > > >We just wanted to define two reserved multicast IPv6 prefixes and >after giving up modifying IP addressing architecture, we are now >talking about changing so many RFCs. > >In this mail earlier Stig said: > >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01663.html > >we can state that inter-domain operation is not a requirement and we >do not support embedded-RP. > >Behcet >_______________________________________________ >MBONED mailing list >MBONED@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned >
- [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-f… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Brian Haberman
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Stig Venaas
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Lee, Yiu
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Lee, Yiu
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Brian Haberman
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Stig Venaas
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Stig Venaas
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Lee, Yiu
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Stig Venaas
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Stig Venaas
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Jacni Qin
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Jacni Qin
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… Jacni Qin
- Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addre… mohamed.boucadair