> Another example would be if uni-based mcast prefixes are used
> with BGMP, or any other scheme, to locate the root (domain) of the
> multicast tree without doing anything different in BGP. If the
> domain loses its old unicast prefix, after which it's advertised
> by no one, then the derived multicast addresses would similarly
> be (intentionally) unusable inter-domain.
Dave,
If so it would be a fine thing to explicitly document this in the draft
as a potential issue.
One of my comments/questions in the first mail (which you passed to Brian
as an editorial one) was the issue of what aspects of the IPv4 stuff we
need and need not carry forward to IPv6.
Clearly(?) the documents remove the need for MASC for IPv6. Is that all?
Will uni-based have any effect on MBGP and BGMP?
(I can't find an BGMP draft to even have a peek.)
These questions might seem na�ve to you, but I suspect there are implementors
and operators that might have the same questions.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
