Subject: New "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture" draft

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:25:13 -0700

I just submitted a new version of "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture" to 
be an internet draft.  Until is available in the ID directories it can be 
found at:

  ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/hinden/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-01.txt

The changes in this draft resolve issues raised in the w.g. last call for 
Draft Standard, removed the appendix defining ABNF description of text 
representations because it was not correct, and unassigning the IPX address 
block because there does not appear to be any current or planned usage.

Overall the changes from RFC2373 are:

   - Removed the ABNF Description of Text Representations Appendix.
   - Changed the address block reserved for IPX addresses to
     unassigned.
   - Multicast scope name changes:
       o Changed name of scope value 1 from "node-local" to
         "interface-local"
       o Reserved scope value 3 for "subnet-local" for multi-link
         subnets
       o Defined scope value 4 as "admin-local"
   - Clarified text describing Exchanges.
   - Corrected reference to RFC1933 and updated references.
   - Several minor textual clarifications.

Once the new draft is out, it will be sent to the IESG for Draft 
Standard.  This document will replace RFC2373.

Bob

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:55:53 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:25:13 -0700, 
>>>>> Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> said:

>        o Defined scope value 4 as "admin-local"

What is the "admin-local" scope? Is it an IPv6 version of
"Administratively Scoped Multicast"?

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:46:37 -0400

Tatuya,
     Yes, it is equivalent to the "local scope" defined in
RFC 2365 and RFC 2730.  It should be noted that those documents
refer to IPv6 scope 3 currently, but will need to be changed
to scope 4.

Brian

-- 
Brian Haberman
Nortel Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:40:12 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:46:37 -0400, 
>>>>> "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]> said:

> refer to IPv6 scope 3 currently, but will need to be changed

I see. Then I'd like to ask how large the admin-local scope is. Is
there any relationship between other scopes?

In fact, draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-01.txt says as follows:

           o  for multicast scopes, scopes with lesser values in the
              "scop" subfield of the multicast address [RFC 2373,
              section 2.7] are smaller than scopes with greater values,
              with node-local being the smallest and global being the

According to this description, admin-local is larger than link-local
and smaller than site-local. Is my understanding correct? And if so,
is the definition really reasonable? (Although it depends on the
definition of "site").

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:14:17 -0400

> is the definition really reasonable? (Although it depends on the

Your understanding is correct (link-local <= scope 3 <= scope 4 <=
site-local).
Is it reasonable?  I believe so.  Several of us discussed this issue in
relation to RFC 2365 and determined that scope 4 allows for more
flexibility
in the use of admin scoped multicast.

Brian

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:32:01 +0900

>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:14:17 -0400, 

> in the use of admin scoped multicast.

I see. I don't necessarily argue that it is unreasonable, but I'm just
a bit wandering what if someone wants to specify admin-local scope
zone that covers multiple sites...(still, the fact that we don't have
a concrete definition of site would be a source of confusion).

					JINMEI, Tatuya