+1So "subnet" is not the right term. I think "network" as Ralph wrote is fine but if the disassociation with network addressing needs to be clear, why not use the term "domain"? After all, trickle-mcast talks about MPL Domains. I appreciate it may have some pre-established connotations but from an abstract definition point of view, "domain" seems eligible enough.
Robert On 16/07/2013 23:59, Ralph Droms wrote:
This draft is on the 6man agenda for Berlin. I expect the discussion will be taken up there. In my opinion, the multicast scope should not be tied, thought the words in the description of the scope, to the address assignment architecture. - Ralph On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:41 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:Hi:"subnet" implies that this multicast scope must derive from the address assignment topology. The first (and only) use case is derived from the /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of scope 0x03?I think so.Same here. Pascal _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list r...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll_______________________________________________ Roll mailing list r...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
