Subject: [sunset4] draft-cao-sunset4-v4v6-mcast-addr-conversion [was RE: Draft agenda]

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:55:46 -0800

> Bash away!
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-sunset4

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cao-sunset4-v4v6-mcast-addr-conversion says

   The approach described in this draft is fully compatible with
   [I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format].

but it does not explain the difference from that MBONED document, or how the
MBONED document is insufficient or otherwise fails to meet the authors'
needs.  Can the authors of draft-cao-sunset4-v4v6-mcast-addr-conversion
provide that explanation, or perhaps this has already been discussed in
SUNSET4 or in MBONED and my mail archives cannot find it?

-d

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:22:19 +0800

Hi, Dan Wing

 The motivation of this new draft is below:
 1. Increasing the network security, by defining Ruled_IPv4_M_Prefix. When 
the multicast IPv4 destination address in the incoming IPv4 packet doesn't 
match the Ruled_IPv4_M_Prefix, the CONV node discards this packet.

 2.Differentiating the IPv6 network using diferent IPv6 multicast prefix, 
by defining different Ruled_IPv6_M_Prefix which could be compatible with 
RFC3306 OR RFC3956 OR some other multicast prefixes defined by operators.

 3.Not limit the IPv4 multicast address remaining in the last 32bits and 
not limit the IPv6 multicast prefix to /96, by flexible defining 
Ruled_IPv4_Offset&Ruled_IPv4_Type, increasing the network flexible.

 4.This draft can be seen as a update version of 
draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format[2]. When the rule just 
include Ruled_IPv6_M_Prefix parameter, it is the same as [2]. 

BRs
Linda Wang