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

On 6/28/2012 3:26 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> Wait, is there any reason to require anything more than a predictable IPv6 multicast address prefix for this?

This would be instead of a predictable prefix.

Regarding predictable prefix. As in
draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format

I don't think you can have just 96 fixed bits though. I'm not quite sure
what you mean by predictable.

If there is nothing in say a PIM (S,G)-join (in the group address or in
the PIM message) to say that G has a 32-bits IPv4 multicast address
embedded, then the best I can think of is to configure the devices so
that they know that a specific IPv6 prefix has an address embedded. But
I don't think it can be a fixed well-known hardcoded address.

Stig

> Bert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mboned-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:23 PM
> To: Tina TSOU
> Cc: mboned@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] An alternative to draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format?
>
> On 6/28/2012 3:11 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
>> The AD said draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format has been moved to WG 6man.
>
> I know. But I think whether this alternative approach can work is
> something we probably need to consider here in mboned. We are the
> ones that are looking at translation mechanisms and need some kind
> of mechanism to show that an IPv4 address is embedded.
>
> Stig
>
>> Tina
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2012, at 2:58 PM, "Stig Venaas" <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The draft draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format specifies as you
>>> know, a new flag to indicate that an IPv4 multicast address is embedded.
>>> This is useful for translators (and maybe other devices) that can then
>>> extract the IPv4 address and doing operations as needed on that address.
>>>
>>> I would like to present a possible alternative, and hear your thoughts.
>>> What if instead, when the group address is specified in a PIM join, or
>>> an MLD report, there was a flag as part of the PIM/MLD message that
>>> indicated that an IPv4 address is embedded?
>>>
>>> A new draft describing this is available at
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-mboned-64mcast-embedded-address-00
>>>
>>> What do you think? Might this be an alternative? Are there other
>>> cases (apart from receiving a PIM join or an MLD report), where we
>>> need to know that an IPv4 address is embedded in the group address?
>>>
>>> Stig
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>