>>>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:19:44 +0200,
>>>>> Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 4) I'm not sure whether I see the immediate need for the unique subnet
>> multicast scope assignment, as below:
>>
>> Furthermore, to avoid the need to perform manual configuration in
>> most cases, an implementation should, by default, initially assign
>> zone indices as follows, and only as follows:
>> [...]
>> o A unique subnet (multicast "scop" value 3) index for each
>> interface
>>
>> ==> this seems mostly like a flawed concept anyway, because you don't really
>> don't have a multicast "subnet" to begin with, because you don't assign
>> multicast addresses on interfaces anyway. So, I'd consider removing this
>> automatic default and requiring the subnet scope be configured manually.
Hmm, I was not very careful to realize that "subnet-local" scope was
not adopted in RFC3513 (it was in
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt).
draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt still does not have it.
I don't remember the discussion, if any, on why this concept was
removed from the address architecture, but I agree the concept is not
very clear at best. I guess the most reasonable way to deal with this
point is to remove the concept of "subnet-local" scope from this
document as well.
I hope this makes sense for everyone.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
