> >Generally, hosts already support MLD/IGMP in order to join multicast > >groups, so why require them to run a routing protocol? > > at this moment no client implementation issues MLD join for > anycast address, so it is a large change to make.
Sure, that is to be expected. The primary change would have to be in the checking of the group address. Today, implementations check to ensure that the group address passed in the join is a multicast address. So this is a change to the stack implementation. In order to perform authentication, MLD would have to be protected with a security scheme similar to that used for routing protocols. Your proposal would not require changes to a stack. The operator would be required to run whatever intra-domain routing protocol, possibly with some security key to protect the infrastructure, so the server would become a part of the set of trusted boxes in the network. I prefer having a fewer number of boxes injecting routes, but I am not committed to either approach yet. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
