FWIW, in addition, it would be useful to at least mention that LANE-style alternatives (RFC2225) to broadcast have similar issues with sharing information, but only with the centralized (broadcast/multicast) emulating server.
Joe On 3/7/2017 11:35 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, all, > > I think it would be useful to include a section explaining what is > meant by broadcast and multicast, and the current state of these. In > particular, highlighting the following as context for these > considerations: > > - all 1's broadcast is supposed to never transit routers (RFC1812) > > - as a default, subnet-directed broadcast shouldn't be going past > routers either (RFC2644) > > - multicast in IPv6 may have limited scope (e.g., not all uses are > to "all-nodes") > > - duplicate address detection in IPv6 sends only to the multicast > group that would be joined by another party with the same address > > - relays, such as for DHCP, proxy ARP, etc., can extend the scope > of broadcast and multicast beyond the originator's original intent > > These each limit (or extend) who can see a broadcast/multicast message > - and can be used in consideration of the extent to which information > in the message leaks out. > > I.e., "all broadcast is not equal", and "all multicast is not equal". > > Joe > > > > On 3/6/2017 1:09 PM, Juan Carlos Zuniga wrote: >> Dear Int-Area WG, >> >> A review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider has been published. >> Since there was good support for this document from the beginning and >> the new version addresses the pending comments, we believe it is >> ready for WG Last Call. >> >> This email starts an Int-Area WG Last Call on: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-02 >> >> Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send >> comments by 2017-03-20. >> >> In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance with >> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)": >> Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to >> draft-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice? >> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? >> (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) >> >> Best, >> >> Juan Carlos Zuniga & Wassim Haddad >> (Int-Area WG co-chairs) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
