Subject: RE: mboned: draft-jdurand-assign-addr-ipv6-multicast-dhcpv6-00 comments

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:43:02 -0700

Stig Venaas writes:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 06:03:48PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> [...]
> > have RFC3306 or embedded-RP; it is not clear which problem we're
solving
> > (and which problems remain to be solved).
> >
> > In particular, if any host on a link with a /64 prefix could
calculate
> its
> > own multicast prefix (unique to that link) on its own, and have 32
bits
> of
> > group-id's to pick from (making sure they don't conflict on that
link),
> > could one argue that there is no need for central multicast address
> > assignment.. but rather a mechanism where the host could pick a
group-id
> in
> > such a way it doesn't conflict (a random process should be
sufficient,
> but
> > if not, there could be Multicast DAD)?
> 
> Yes, I've also thought a bit about this. The 64-bit link-id could be a
> starting point too. I think some form of DAD would be nice. 

The "multicast DAD" functionality is what ZMAAP was proposed for in the
Zeroconf WG, but it expired due to lack of interest at the time.  It's
at
http://files.zeroconf.org/draft-ietf-zeroconf-zmaap-02.txt

-Dave

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: Jerome Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:52:43 +0200

> http://files.zeroconf.org/draft-ietf-zeroconf-zmaap-02.txt

ZMAAP included many more things that just the multicast DAD. But it is 
right there was the idea of defending an address. There was no interest 
in the complete protocol (that was IMHO too much complex and not scalable).

Jerome