Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp-01.txt

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:25:46 +0100

On 30/07/2009 16:50, Martin Pels wrote:
> We've had a couple of students research this.

Sounds interesting.  Are the results of this work publicly available?

Nick

---

From: Martin Pels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:50:28 +0200

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:25:46 +0100

> Sounds interesting.  Are the results of this work publicly available?

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~delaat/sne-2008-2009/p23/report.pdf

Kind regards,
Martin

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:31:42 -0300

martin,

this is excellent material, not only for the IXP document but also on  
how ND is handled in practice.

referring to the next version of the document, I was thinking in add  
the following comment when I talk about solicited-node multicast  
addresses:

solicited-node multicast groups.

"Depending on the addressing plan selected by the IXP, each solocited- 
node multicast group may be shared by a sub-set of participants'  
caused by how the last three octects of the addresses are selected.  
In  example 1 in Section 3, only participants with ASNs with the same  
two last digits are going to share the same solocited-node multicast  
group."

However, your test show that it may not make a difference in router  
resources consumption, depending on implementations.

what do you think?

Roque.

> http://staff.science.uva.nl/~delaat/sne-2008-2009/p23/report.pdf

- -------------------------------------------------------------
Roque Gagliano
LACNIC
[email-masked]
GPG Fingerprint: E929 06F4 D8CD 2AD8 9365  DB72 9E4F 964A 01E9 6CEE