Please see comments below : Pekka Savola wrote:
> 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. No, as mentioned before, SSM format is FF3X::/96 in section 7 of RFC 3306. Thus, it is distinguishable. So, which one is correct ? (FF3X::/32 or FF3X::/96) We shoud ask it to the authors of RFC 3306. Anyway, I think this issue can be easily resolved. (depending on decision) Thanks, M-K. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
