i presume folk in this wg are tracking the comments which have been received in other wgs?
randy From: Pavlin Radoslavov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: mboned wg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: v6 documents Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 01:23:17 -0800 (Sorry if a duplicate, but seems like for some reason my first attempt few days ago wasn't propagated by the mailing list.) > has this wg taken a look at > draft-ietf-ipngwg-uni-based-mcast-03.txt Few comments: * It seems that under this proposal the allocated multicast addresses per unicast prefix will always be /96, regardless of the size of the "network prefix". Is the assumption that 2^32 multicast addresses will be sufficient for any network, regardless of its size? Indeed, Section 4 says that "All non-significant bits of the network prefix field SHOULD be zero." I'd like to know what is the argument against allowing those non-significant bits to be part of the group ID. E.g., the alternative could be something like: "The group ID should be 32 bits, but if a network needs more than 2^32 multicast addresses, it may use the non-significant bits from "network prefix" as well." * Section 6 "o Set P = 1." Probably this should be specific re. the T-bit as well, even though earlier you specify the relation between those two bits: E.g.: o Set P = 1 and T = 1. * Section 6 "These settings create an SSM range of FF3x::/32 ..." I believe this should be /96 Pavlin -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
