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

james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Fri, 05 March 2010 01:14 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Subject: Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <38CDE90C-7CF7-41B2-893E-E2811B3E51B1@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:08:51 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A424A6DF-68F3-4338-833E-872490C6CB23@apple.com>
References: <D6F5ACD2-EB43-477E-9F48-AC3EDB3F7EB4@apple.com> <0E826480-B510-4907-9F38-6119C0D7523B@cisco.com> <929CA789-3B68-4B60-A623-311D072B4F17@cisco.com> <AA773B57-8CD1-4701-A39A-F2E10DEED35E@apple.com> <38CDE90C-7CF7-41B2-893E-E2811B3E51B1@cisco.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Baugher
RE: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 STARK, BARBARA H (ATTLABS)
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Fwd: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP… Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 - ICMP … Rémi Després
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Fred Baker
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Shane Amante
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Cameron Byrne
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Gert Doering
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 james woodyatt
Status of RFC 4864 (was Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-si… Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Smith
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Mark Townsley
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Ole Troan
Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09 Brian E Carpenter