IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ssm] what to say about scoping for v6

Hitoshi Asaeda <Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr> Wed, 12 March 2003 20:18 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20455 for <ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:18:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2CKWoZ10768 for ssm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:32:50 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CKWoO10765 for <ssm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:32:50 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20434 for <ssm-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:18:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CKWVO10745; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:32:31 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2CKVdO10625 for <ssm@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:31:39 -0500
Received: from sophia.inria.fr (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20388 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:17:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (odie.inria.fr [138.96.88.52]) by sophia.inria.fr (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2CKCke8012211; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:12:46 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: sophia.inria.fr: Host odie.inria.fr [138.96.88.52] claimed to be localhost
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:12:45 +0100
Message-Id: <20030312.211245.31557846.Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr>
To: pekkas@netcore.fi
Cc: holbrook@cisco.com, bkhabs@nc.rr.com, ssm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ssm] what to say about scoping for v6
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303122128130.15347-100000@netcore.fi>
References: <20030312180804.1788F10B7A7@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303122128130.15347-100000@netcore.fi>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2rc1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ssm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ssm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <ssm.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ssm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>   Note that when forwarding or processing SSM, the scope of both S and G 
>   may have to be considered [SCOPED-ARCH]; in particular, if the unicast 
>   scope of S is smaller than respective multicast scope of G, the packets 
>   might end up forwarded outside of the scope of S.  Therefore, limited 
>   scopes should be avoided and must not be used as a security mechanism.

Although I didn't completely follow every mail of this subject, for
me, it is simple that;

       an end-node should not request any (S,G) join whose unicast
       address scope and multicast address scope are not same. If the
       kernel receives such request, it should discard it. Likewise,
       if a router receives such join request, it should also discard
       it.

Why isn't it reasonable?
--
Hitoshi Asaeda
_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email