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

I think such a discussion would be a great idea. As usual we need use 
cases to measure the proposals against. You seem to have some in mind 
when you refer to "some cases". We also need criteria. One of them is 
the amount of administration required.

It would be good to preserve the advantages of embedded RP. You 
certainly can't have a well-known /96 and use embedded RP. RFC 3956 
seems to leave four bits open (aside from the unused flag) -- the four 
bits between scop and RIID. One could contemplate using one of those to 
indicate that an embedded IPv4 address is present as well as an embedded 
RP address. That still leaves the need for an equivalent representation 
when not using embedded RP.

On 29/06/2012 5:32 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On 6/29/2012 12:35 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>
...
>
> I guess I could try to explain why I think a fixed well-defined prefix
> is a bit too limiting. It could work in some cases though. When I say
> configurable, it could in theory be passed via some other protocol.
>
>> What about cases in which PIM isn't used? For example, where proxy
>> IGMP or proxy MLD is used, to make multicasts traversing a network
>> available to an egress router? Or are we saying that it's okay to have
>> incompatible solutions depending on each use case?
>
> For this new proposal, we're describing a flag that can be used in
> IGMP/MLD messages, so not just PIM. Using a bit in the group address
> also obviously works for IGMP/MLD.
>
> Do you think we should have some discussion along these lines in the
> next mboned meeting? I would be happy to try to present all the
> alternatives.
>
> Stig
>
>> Bert
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> MBONED@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>