Dear all, During the IETF LC for draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format, Brian suggested to use the remaining flag instead of reserving ff3x:0:8000/33 (SSM) and ffxx:8000/17 (ASM) blocks. FYI, we have considered that approach in an early version of the document but it has been abandoned because of comments we received at that time. We recorded the rationale behind our design choice in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01#appendix-A.2.
We are seeking more feedback from 6man and mboned on the following: (1) Should we maintain the current design choice (2) Or adopt the suggestion from Brian? FWIW, discussion related to this issue can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01508.html. The latest version of the draft is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01 Your help is appreciated. Cheers, Med
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
