IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Mon, 02 July 2012 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.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 79BFA11E80E7 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 V0AlnpLJyUHN for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE8521F8617 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by werp11 with SMTP id p11so989165wer.31 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=d0BxnmnnHEhQ1fIWP7VdS6oGY0UT12pFNfUP9vDYMJw=; b=L/XaP1DwSOWmAsShpUa8dQzEUsUkmGYcETAalV6l2goKGXlSdQ9a53Qck7jcJbNtCU VTLBP+Vy/3PLqjtObwwIS7w5D+VeT1eraJAc20YX/fILQhhKCDlW19BYnBHUgR/YwAfP I++56uhm5ISQ/Q7S5uVZS27b/xwm9RJ6GFr1sh0Kd+LByQUa2ToJlaQEh899f+d7CuFY 7JIQ4xudx4xccUrz/SsE6omL7hu4QQuQBn+m1viK60Jb0BqDpBpsgEC3j2CMwUA4hbVb M/slEjkcZ0hzD4gQku/4p/GLMtN5Biuy+uTn/rVnku7iJ9mHNJOAR6XNHgcFPnYiXTBa 1XUg==
Received: by 10.216.218.200 with SMTP id k50mr2616587wep.212.1341261335892; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([207.112.119.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m4sm26802463wie.1.2012.07.02.13.35.34 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FF20613.5050107@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:35:31 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.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: sarikaya@ieee.org
References: <4FECD32D.30403@venaas.com> <EE15DDE8-F921-4F9F-B0B4-704A8BD10045@huawei.com> <4FECD960.8070407@venaas.com> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BC4A5ADC@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com> <4FECDBA0.3090405@venaas.com> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BC4A5AE1@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com> <4FED2926.60300@venaas.com> <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02BC4A5D35@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com> <4FEE1EDF.7010907@venaas.com> <4FEF2DB9.2030809@gmail.com> <CAC8QAccGDUJx7DbFS8Bwgr4+4jF6FVE2=t7zAQfGkzy=3-vaZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAccGDUJx7DbFS8Bwgr4+4jF6FVE2=t7zAQfGkzy=3-vaZg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120702-1, 02/07/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 20:35:31 -0000

Your statement is correct, but has nothing to do with a well-known /96. 
That's why I was ruminating on the possible use of a reserved bit to 
indicate the presence of an embedded IPv4 address.

On 02/07/2012 4:17 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be good to preserve the advantages of embedded RP. You certainly
>> can't have a well-known /96 and use embedded RP.
>
>
> Why not?
>
> If the translator is able to use an IPv6 Embedded-
> RP prefix to represent IPv4 ASM groups on the IPv6 network, no
> modifications are required
> to the configuration of other PIM routers.
>
> (From Teemu's thesis).
>
> Behcet
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email