Dear Bob, The main changes in -03 are as follows:
* Abandon the M-bit idea to represent IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast prefix * Explain the rationale for selecting a /96 (SSM) and /20 (ASM) * Reserve two prefixes to be used for the algorithmic translation of an IPv6 multicast address into an IPv4 one; and vice versa (1) ff3x:0:8000::/96 for SSM (2) ffxx:8000::/20 for ASM * The document does not update RFC4291; i.e., no change to the IPv6 addressing architecture. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >Envoyé : mardi 14 août 2012 17:33 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >Cc : Bob Hinden; ipv6@ietf.org; Jacni Qin; >draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-for...@tools.ietf.org; >Stig Venaas >Objet : Re: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format > >Med, > >The new draft appears to have many changes from the previous >version. It would be helpful if you could describe the >changes. This is usually done in the draft itself, but I >didn't see it in -03. > >Thanks, >Bob > >On Aug 14, 2012, at 2:09 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> ><mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I'm initiating this thread in the hope of understanding the >> objections from the 6man WG and hopefully to make some progress for >> this document. To initiate the discussion, below are provided some >> preliminary Q/A: >> >> What is the scope of this document? >> The document specifies an algorithmic translation of an IPv6 >> multicast address to a corresponding IPv4 multicast address, and >> vice versa. The document reserves two IPv6 multicast prefixes to >> be used for that purpose. >> >> What are these reserved prefixes? >> * ff3x:0:8000::/96 for SSM >> * ffxx:8000::/20 for ASM >> >> Does this document update IPv6 addressing architecture? >> No. >> >> Is there a unicast counterpart of this proposal? >> Yes, RFC6052. >> >> What is the problem to be solved? >> There are several use cases as detailed in [I-D.ietf-mboned-v4v6- >> mcast-ps]. In particular, the following use cases are of >> interest: >> 1. An IPv6-only receiver wants to receive multicast content from >> an IPv4-only source (6-4). >> 2. An IPv4 receiver wants to join a multicast group in IPv4 >> domain via an IPv6-only network (4-6-4). >> >> Are there solutions for the unicast counterpart of these use cases? >> Yes; various solutions including: >> 1. 6-4: RFC6146 >> 2. 4-6-4: RFC6333, RFC6346, ... >> >> The latest version of the document is available at: >> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addr ess-format-03. >> >> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >> >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
