On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Dave Thaler wrote: > Antonio Querubin writes: > > If it is how about just defining mapped multicast addresses already? > [...] > > | 80 bits | 16 | 32 bits | > > +--------------------------------------+--------------------------+ > > |0000..............................0000|FFFF|IPv4 multicast group | > > +--------------------------------------+----+---------------------+ > > This has been discussed before, and the above format is illegal, since > all multicast addresses must begin with 0xFF, not 0x00.
You mean all IPv6 multicast addresses? But here we mean mapped representations of IPv4 addresses which in this case happen to be multicast. For implementation purposes I think it would be simpler to keep the /96 prefix identical for both IPv4 unicast and IPv4 multicast addresses. Otherwise, tests for address type become a little more complicated since we'd be adding yet another prefix to test for and another map classification. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
