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