Brian Haberman wrote:
> > It would be quite useful to outline a bit more of
> > the problem that needs solving in the introduction.
> > It would also be useful to have a comparision with IPv4
> > (either in the introduction or later in the document).
> > Questions I'd like to see answered is whether there are
> > approaches and protocols used for IPv4 multicast address allocation
that
> is
> > effectively replaced by the techniques in the draft i.e. whether the
> > WGs believe that some mechanisms and protocols that do not need to
> > be carried forward to IPv6.
>
> Not a problem. There was a fair amount of discussion that never
> made it into the document wrt what protocols were not being pulled
> forward from v4. The overall goal is to avoid the need for any
> inter-domain allocation protocol. Our approach basically will only
> need, at most, MADCAP servers.
Actually, for allocating uni-based mcast addresses, ZMAAP would be more
appropriate than MADCAP, since one only has to coordinate within a
subnet. (In fact, this was one of the motivations behind doing ZMAAP,
since it doesn't require a server.) However, it does not obsolete
MADCAP, which would still be used by the sort of people who like
using DHCP for unicast address allocation, as well as in the scenario
Brian mentions later in the email:
> In addition, I could envision the use of this on large
> switched LANs with a MADCAP server.
-Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
