Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re: [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local)

["Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <[e-mail]>]

I think I read consensus from the WG to make the following changes to draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes, and list the document as "Updates RFC 4007":

*** Add as a new last paragraph in section 2:

   The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291:

   OLD:

         Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
         administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
         from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
         configuration.

   NEW:

         Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries
         are automatically derived from physical connectivity or
         other, non-multicast related configuration.  Global scope has
         no boundary.  The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes
         are administratively configured.

*** Add section 3 (and renumber current section 3-5):

3.  Updates to RFC 4007, section 5

   Section 5 of RFC 4007 and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree about the
   way in which multicast scope 3 is configured.  To resolve that disagreement,
   change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of RFC 4007 as follows:

OLD:

   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
      link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
      administrators.

NEW:

   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
      addressing architecture [RFC4291].

I haven't seen any discussion of changing Realm-Local to Multilink-Local beyond Kerry's initial suggestion and Robert's support of the change.

- Ralph

On Oct 17, 2013, at 12:10 PM 10/17/13, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kerry correctly points out that RFC 4007 and RFC 4291 are in conflict regarding the way in which multicast scope 3 is defined:
> 
> RFC 4007, section 5:
> 
>   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
>      link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
>      administrators.
> 
> RFC 4291, section 2.7:
> 
>         Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
>         administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
>         from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
>         configuration.
> 
> Noting this conflict, I propose adding a bit of text to draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes to update RFC 4007 for consistency with RFC 4291:
> 
> Add section 3 (and renumber current section 3-5):
> 
> 3.  Updates to RFC 4007, section 5
> 
>   Section 5 of RFC 4007 and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree about the
>   way in which multicast scope 3 is configured.  To resolve that disagreement,
>   change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of RFC 4007 as follows:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
>      link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
>      administrators.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>   o  Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
>      administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
>      from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
>      configuration.
> 
> Looking for consensus in the 6man WG before I make this change...
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:04 AM 10/16/13, Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> I think Ralph's approach is the correct one.  His draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes belongs in
>> 6man as it re-defines a reserved code point in the IPv6 addressing architecture.  It nominally
>> updates RFC 4291 but should probably also update RFC 4007 as these RFCs are in conflict
>> regarding the automatic definition of scope 0x03.
> [...]
>