On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
Greetings,
RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-local (0x03)" multicast scope, but
later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved.
Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one?
I ask in the context of e.g.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns
where we need a scope greater than link-local in order to span a 6LoWPAN
subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property "Each
interface
belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." for future site-local
protocols that might include the 6LoWPAN router port.
Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local scope available
for use?
I've always been a bit curious why it got marked as reserved. It was
(unassigned) in RFC 2373, but reserved in RFC 3513. I don't remember
any discussion on this.
It seems 4 admin-local would be appropriate then. Unless perhaps if 3
is somehow reserved to allow for maybe future use like this...
Stig
Thanks, -K-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
