> > The last paragraph in section 3 is about lifetimes.
> > I don't understand what the intended effect is of the statement
> > since I don't know what the lifetime is of a multicast address.
> See RFC 2908.
2908 seems to say mcast addresses have a start and end lifetime. That
makes sense. What I think is potentially significantly different with
the approach described in *this* document is that the lifetimes are
much shorter. I.e., it is conceivable that unicast addresses will be
advertised with prefixes of several days or a week in common
cases. That doesn't mean the addresses will expire then, just that
short unicast lifetimes are being advertised, just in case, it becomes
necessary to deprecate the address relatively quickly. However, if
multicast addresses derive their lifetimes from the same lifetime,
there may be a mismatch in expectations.
Seems to me that it might very well cause problems for multicast
applications that request an address with a start and end time that
don't match the advertised lifetimes of unicast addresses.
I wonder if this point should to be discussed in the document
explicitely. I.e., seems like this is a potential difference between
IPv4 multicast and IPv6 multicast. We should be making such
differences very clear to minimize confusion, if nothing else.
Will the tying of mcast adddresses to unicast lifetimes put additional
pressure on using longer unicast lifetimes? Is this a good thing?
What are typical start and end times that folks use in IPv4 today? Do
they match expectations for unicast lifetimes in IPv6?
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
