Okay, looks like Im unclear with the basics of IPv6 mcast addresses: I could
use 112 bit group IDs, as long as some mechanism for mapping 112 bit IDs to
ethernet mcast addresses exists, right? Does such a mechanism exist? Is there
an RFC/draft discussing using 112 bit group IDs?
Mukul
Brian Haberman wrote:
> Mukul,
> For the same reason that RFC 2373 only uses the lower 32 bits
> for multicast group IDs. It makes the mapping into IEEE 802 multicast
> MAC addresses less likely to lead to collisions.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
> Mukul Chawla wrote:
> >
> > Im not clear why draft-ietf-ipngwg-uni-based-mcast-02.txt, Section 3
> > looks _only_ at IPv6 mcast addresses created by mapping 32 bit IEEE 802
> > MAC addresses (RFC2373, 2.7.2) rather than creating an SSM service range
> > in IPv6 which uses 112 bit group IDs? What am I missing here? Is there
> > an IPv6 SSM range which uses 112 bit group IDs?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mukul
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
