On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Pekka Savola writes:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> > > I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> > > My revised draft is available as follows:
> > > http://www.ipv6.or.kr/eng/draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-04.txt
> >
> > I don't think this addresses my concerns. This does not work with
> > source-specific multicast in general, or even source-specific
> > multicast w/ link-local scope in specific.
>
> With source-specific multicast, the problem this draft addresses
> does not exist. That is, there is no need for ensuring uniqueness
> on the link. RFC 3306 already specifies how SSM addresses are done
> (including for link-local scope multicast addresses).
No, the problem is not that. It is that this document overloads the
link-local multicast semantics so that a SSM ll multicast address and
a "link-scoped address" are semantically undistinguishable.
SSM range is FF3X::/32. This draft invades in that territory.
As stated before, there are a number of ways to achieve the same
behaviour without these problems, e.g., using
- FF32:40:fe80::<32 bits where you can plug the least significant 32
bits off your EUI64 -- pretty good method>
- FF32:A:fe80::<EUI64>,
- FF02::<EUI64>:<group-ID> ("transient address")
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
