Med, On May 23, 2012, at 6:20 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote:
> Dear all, > > Many thanks for the individuals who read the draft and provided some comment. > > My read of the the answers received in this thread is there is no strong > reasons to question the design choices as documented in the draft. Did you see my comments sent on 5/5/2012? I continue to think that there are alternatives that do not require any change to the IPv6 addressing architecture, nor use such a big percentage of the multicast group ID space. Bob > > FWIW, I just submitted a updated version taking into account the comments > received during the IETF LC: > > * Editorial changes as suggested in SM's review > * Title change (comment from C. Bormann) > * Added a new section to describe the algorithm to embed/extract the IPv4 > address (comment from C. Bormann) > * Added some pointers to documents making use of the address format (comment > from C. Bormann) > * Added an appendix to explain why an M-bit is needed (comment from C. > Bormann) > * Added an appendix to explain why an address format is needed (comment from > C. Bormann) > * Added examples of means to provision the MPREFIX64 (comment from C. Bormann) > > Diff from previous version: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-02 > > Cheers, > Med > > > De : ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > Envoyé : vendredi 4 mai 2012 14:50 > À : mboned-cha...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org > Cc : Brian Haberman; > draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-for...@tools.ietf.org > Objet : 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
