Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Link Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses"

[Myung-Ki Shin <mkshin@pec.etri.re.kr>]

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> > In my memory,
> > IPv6 guys also agreed on our view during the 54th IETF meeting.
> >
> > I think ..
> > RFC3306 needs allocation server of 32bit goup ID
> > in order to support the uniqueness in the site.
> > This site is identified by network prefix.
> >
> > But,
> > Group ID Autoconfiguration in link-scope will be valuable
> > without help of allocation server.
> > Each node in our draft  allocates group ID independently.
>
> I understand that link-scope has benefits over unicast-prefix for scope <=2.
> So saying "it is preferred to use ..." or "recommended" would seem ok.
> But saying "MUST" - meaning a prohibitation of using unicast-prefix -
> seems much to strong unless there are arguments that unicast-prefix
> is "broken" (not just "suboptimal") for those scopes.

   ok, I think it is a good clarification.

   Thanks,
   Myung-Ki.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------