Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09

[Mark Baugher <[e-mail]>]

While I don't think it is necessarily true that 'making site-local the DEFAULT multicast scope boundary places the subscriber network in the same organization-local scope as the provider network', I think its true that both site-local and organization-local need to stay on the 'interior' network.  So it would be better to say what is allowed to be forwarded to and from the exterior (i.e. global-scope multicast) and by implication, everything else is not (organization/site/link-local).

Mark

On Mar 4, 2010, at 5:08 PM, james woodyatt wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2010, at 16:50, Mark Baugher wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:41 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
>>> 
>>> I will say that it doesn't make sense to me that my service provider should be allowed to join my organization-local scope multicast groups, or that I can join their organization-local scope groups.  That's what it would mean if we said 'site-local' here instead of what it currently says.
>> 
>> Site scope give us the same thing and I recommend that we use that instead.
> 
> I'm confused.  To what "same thing" are you referring?
> 
> I've explained that making site-local the DEFAULT multicast scope boundary places the subscriber network in the same organization-local scope as the provider network, whereas making organization-local the DEFAULT multicast scope boundary places the subscriber network and the provider network in different organization-local scopes.
> 
> In what way are subscribers and providers part of the same organization?  Why are they not separate organizations by DEFAULT?
> 
> 
> --
> james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
> 
> 
>