> > I fail to understand why routing might fail. Could you explain?
> > I do understand that there is a different probability of allocating duplicate
> > uni-based mcast addresses should the unicast prefix be assigned to another
> > entity, but this doesn't lead to routing failing unless you are assuming
> > that routing will do something it doesn't currently do.
>
> I think one possible example is with SSM. The first hop router
> may receive an IGMPv3 join with an old prefix that has been
> renumbered. It then tries to send the SPT Join to the wrong
> network. That network doesn't exist and so the Join fails and
> the multicast traffic never flows.
Brian,
I thought uni-based mcast addresses for SSM has an all zero prefix component.
(That's what the uni-based draft says.)
Are you referring to such a prefix or the IP source address?
Clearly SSM, which explicitly identifies a group by the pair <IP source
address, Multicast destination>, is likely to barf when the IP source address
is no longer valid for the sender.
Depending on whether the document is correct or not about having a zero
prefix in the SSM multicast destination, this may or may not be
an issue for the actual multicast address.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
