> I think this text is much better. It is clear now that all nodes must
> implement at least enough of the MCAP protocol to properly process
> receives from channels other than the broadcast. Send-only nodes (do
> they exist?) could presumably not implement any of MCAP and still be
> compliant. Is this the intent? Or is the intent really to require it
> for both senders and receivers, but then encourage senders to actually
> use MCAP?
Send-only nodes MUST use MCAP to determine whether or not the multicast
group has been already mapped to a channel other than the default broadcast
channel.
So the text should be as follows:
| high-rate multicast streams. When a node wishes to receive or
| transmit multicast data addressed to other than all-nodes multicast
| addresses, all-routers multicast addresses, and solicited-node
| multicast addresses, it MUST confirm if the channel mapping between
| a multicast group address and a channel number exists using MCAP,
| as described in "9. IP MULTICAST" in [IP1394].
Only a node which never send nor receive any multicast group address
other than
all-nodes multicast addresses,
all-routers multicast addresses, and
solicited-node multicast addresses,
can omit to implement MCAP.
> One of the things that is unspecified in RFC 2734 is when to
> allocate a separate multicast channel and when to use the broadcast
> one. I gather that experimentation/experience is needed in this space.
Since it doesn't affect interoperability, it can be left to implementation
for now, IMO.
Atsushi Onoe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
