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

On 02.07.2012 15:01, Brian Haberman wrote:
> On 7/2/12 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.
>
> This would not be a well-known 96-bit prefix. The information describing
> the RP address (within that /96) would change based on which network is
> maintaining the RP.

It could work if everyone used the same RP address ;) Sort of an
anycast RP address. It would probably not be a good idea though.

Of course we could argue whether we need to support embedded-RP.
It is very useful, especially inter-domain, but if that is not a
requirement, we may not need to support it.

Stig

>
> Regards,
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned