Subject: Re: [magma] WG Last Call: draft-holbrook-idmr-igmpv3-ssm-04.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 08:01:46 -0400

Pavlin Radoslavov wrote:

> My preference would be that the SSM admin-scope range is within the
> original SSM range (232/8), because of the substantial difference
> between ASM and SSM (compared to the difference between "scoped" and
> "non-scoped" multicast), and because it keeps things cleaner. In
> that case, you may need to add additional scope zone configuration
> only for your border routers; otherwise you may have to reconfigure
> all your routers AND hosts to support SSM within some subrange of
> 239/8.

I agree with Pavlin on this point.  Having an admin-scope range
in 232/8 is much cleaner.

Brian

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 08:01:46 -0400

Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:27:52 -0700

> in 232/8 is much cleaner.

me too.

- rusty

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:27:52 -0700

me too.

- rusty

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 17:21:22 +0200 (MEST)

> in 232/8 is much cleaner.

I don't have a strong objection to allocate such new special address
range again, though, I feel it is just a weak patch work...

In general address range allocation should not be done so easily,
because it implies preparing new addressing architecture, which
usually requires new kernel/application/router implementation (*).
Moreover, IMO, multicast policy and scope definition cannot be always
directly related to a rule of the usage of multicast address range.
Now, we may need to define a "channel scope", which means, e.g., only
one of channels, which are using a same multicast address, should be
available within a controled (or an administrative) domain/region.

I really don't want to start the discussion "what is the meaning of
*scope*" here (too:), but the decision of scope using address range is
weak any more.
I think now is the time to define new multicast scoping architecture,
which is especially suitable for SSM environment.

(I've published a *draft* version of my paper related to this
discussion. If some of you are interested in it, it's available on;
<http://www.inria.fr/rrrt/rr-4762.html>.)

> > If the host IP module receives a non source-specific request to receive
> > multicast traffic to an SSM destination address, the host IP module of
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > an SSM-aware host SHOULD return an error to the application.

"the host IP module" means kernel implementation, right?
For me, this SHOULD is better to be changed to MAY.
In fact, I don't like the idea to believe that every kernel returns
error if the application uses invalid address range which is *newly*
defined.
This is one of the points what I mean in (*).
--
Hitoshi Asaeda
_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

---

From: Hitoshi Asaeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 17:21:22 +0200 (MEST)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^