I don't know why IPv6 becomes more arcane with every new I-D. Why not work to make it simpler, rather than more complex and confusing, with every new iteration?
In this particular case, it is really confusing to change the location of this new field, 64IX, depending whether it's ASM or SSM. And I might suggest to drop the 64IX nibble altogether. Use the remaining bit of the flgs field instead of the M bit of the 64IX field, and then allow for different combinations of the flgs bits for future codes? Bert From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:50 AM To: mboned-cha...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org Cc: Brian Haberman; draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-for...@tools.ietf.org Subject: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format 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 ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
