Re: [MBONED] draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-03.txt

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Tue, 21 August 2012 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@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 748FC21F8787 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 i+X8kZtsr9la for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB72621F84FE for <mboned@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so6568092yen.31 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DClDM7KkttD8hg734W4X10rMLbayNiOd2ZGqTLhg1W8=; b=wCC1z/BoJdi/2h9G2OkaC8m/xCzQ8/1OEQVumGvc76qe/hK6dfQ88EblyTNjSrpSxQ j4z8NTvd5GTHn2mNEPz8KH91DMqHzlNeA4naP5wCAJBqVexlxFQiGYBRhTvy0wjLgc+d ryuhYdxscLC43RKsavmwtuRYOKvOYLZTE0Ii7tD5C2IO7HQ73k1gZh/95wqLEkSZ8zj9 IxxVFCCUTOeGEUKVD2MNNqRdvVAxgDAm6/pu/dXDjcR+lKyMhE9q6uoFucmruFbLl2QL r2qBLHL83JOcff+hWysNt3SOzKit1xqZd04S/mHWUsYjv32y7D+wNarj1+QkWvuQ7vHu iKmw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.159.226 with SMTP id xf2mr13761489igb.41.1345564543489; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.55.70 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|b1f060ff67b81d8a57bf37f9620b398co7JNdl03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E3E93136-7F2F-40B8-BC3B-CA7C9DC25F42@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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> <502EA087.2050803@venaas.com> <E3E93136-7F2F-40B8-BC3B-CA7C9DC25F42@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAC8QAccswaS3cTqAdoEUzb4hnFO+qd=cx71k5mdsbo5GJNx6LA@mail.gmail.com> <EMEW3|b1f060ff67b81d8a57bf37f9620b398co7JNdl03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E3E93136-7F2F-40B8-BC3B-CA7C9DC25F42@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:55:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAce3dAaBEdtenLWUQMcxE-PSzRvWgaYcDD214y=PMUwO_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:55:45 -0000

Hi Tim,


>> As far as I understand, the issue here is to use which bit in the
>> reserved field, Tim suggested the rightmost and your proposal uses the
>> leftmost.
>> RFC3946 solves this problem by redefining rsvd field as 4 bits instead
>> of 8 bits in RFC 3306, i.e. it updates 3306 which is already stated in
>> there.
>
> Can't we just say 3306 is updated by this new text, if it is approved?  We may not need to change 3306.
>
> I think the same applies to RFcC3956 too, as bits 17-20 are reserved, and you're using those.  Actually also nteresting to read Appendix A of that RFC ;)
>

Yes, I read. Maybe you missed my point: if we use RFC 3956 and state
it clearly, updating RFC 3306 is going to be implicit in this
normative use.

>> Maybe in this draft we can say that we use RFC 3946 definition of the
>> reserved field.
>>
>> BTW, in Teemu Kiviniemi's thesis on Implementation of an IPv4 to IPv6 Multicast
>> Translator
>> ASM prefix: ff7e:140:2001:db8:ab:cd::/96
>> is used, which matches Tim's suggestion :-).
>
> Not quite, the above is ff7e:0140....

Sorry, I confused the bits.
But the above address seemed to have worked as well. I think that is
the point here.

>>
>> This is the SSM prefix: ff3e::/96 that is used.


My suggestion is to define the ASM prefix as either ff70::/12 or as
ff3x:8000/17 this way we align the prefix with the embedded RP prefix.

Regards,

Behcet