Subject: comment on draft-fujisawa-ip1394-ipv6-02.txt

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:27:57 -0600

I don't know how feasible it would be, but it would be valuable if
all solicited-node multicast addresses FF02:0:0:0:0:1:FFxx:xxxx could
be mapped to a different channel than is used by other multicast
traffic.  Or perhaps some other means can be devised to ensure that a
high-rate multicast stream doesn't swamp a low-performance device.

                                Matt Crawford
                            (not on the ip1394 list)

---

From: Kenji Fujisawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:38:07 +0900

Hi,

Thank you for your comment.

>high-rate multicast stream doesn't swamp a low-performance device.

Yes, high-rate multicast streams should not use the default channel.
IP1394 WG has defined a multicast channel allocation protocol(MCAP)
for IPv4. We can use it for IPv6, too.

draft-ietf-ip1394-ipv4-13.txt
:   The remainder of this section describes a multicast channel allocation
:   protocol (MCAP) employed by both IP multicast sources and recipients
:   whenever a channel number other than the default is used.

draft-fujisawa-ip1394-ipv6-02.txt
:   Best-effort IPv6 multicast for particular multicast group addresses
:   may utilize a different channel number if such a channel number is
:   allocated and advertised prior to use, by the multicast channel
:   allocation protocol (MCAP), as described in [IP1394].

Actually, it does not 'ensure' the use of other channel,
but we should use it when transmitting high-rate multicast streams.
I'll add a comment to encourage the use of MCAP in my next draft.

Best Regards,

Kenji Fujisawa

---

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:54:38 -0600

> I'll add a comment to encourage the use of MCAP in my next draft.

That would do it.  Thanks.

                                Matt Crawford