On Mar 29, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 29 Mar 2012, at 14:15 , Brian Haberman wrote: > >> It is not an assumption, it is stately quite clearly in the Scoped >> Addressing Architecture (RFC 4007). From Section 5 : > >> A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely within >> zones of larger scope. That is, a smaller scope zone cannot >> include more topology than would any larger scope zone with which >> it shares any links or interfaces. > > Brian, Stig, thanks for the help. > > Fred: I think what would be best is to define a "service provider" scope that > is smaller than global, and larger than organization. These would be defined > to be forwarded to ISPs by default, although organizations that don't want > that can always filter them at the desired boundary. > > That way, the clients can always use a fixed scope = fixed multicast group, > avoiding the need for discovery or configuration here.
I don't think this is a service provider discussion. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
