Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3330-for-ipv6-01.txt

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:40:26 +0200

Hi,

I'm coming a bit late to this (sorry), but something just caught my
eye:

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:51:28PM -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> ========
> 2.10 is somewhat incorrect on Multicast:
> 
>    ff00::/8 are multicast addresses [RFC4291].  They have a 4 bits  
> scope
>    in the address field.  Only addresses having the 'E' value in the
>    scope field are of global scope, all other values are local or
>    reserved.  Therefore, only ffXe:: routes may be advertised outside a
>    site, where X may be any value.

I'm wondering about the word "advertised" - I've never hear anyone
use that word in the context of multicast addresses.  They are not carried
in BGP (which is the typical "advertising" of routing data), and PIM
isn't exactly "advertising routes".

So maybe the last sentence should be:

   Therefore, only ffXe:: multicast groups and the accompanying routing
   protocol state may appear outside a site, where X may be any value.

or something like this.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  113403

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:41:13 +0100

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:40:26 +0200, Gert Doering <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'm coming a bit late to this (sorry)

	Apologies from me too.  At least I'm in good company. 8-)

	It would be helpful if prefixes such as 2002:a00::/24 were specifically
	mentioned as needing special attention.  This might be done by explicit
	mention of each such prefix.  Alternatively, language could be used
	which would make clear that the 6to4 image of any IPv4 block for which
	RFC3330 specifies that "Addresses within this block should not appear
	on the public Internet" should be similarly avoided.

	I believe that this would be useful both to those beginning to deploy
	IPv6 in their networks (my case) and those running a 6to4 relay  
service.

	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly
	University College Dublin IT Services

	PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
	Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9