Subject: mboned: A few comments on draft-ietf-mboned-addrdisc-problems-02.txt

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:38:40 +0100

Just some minor comments.

Draft says:

    3.  This has issues with IPv6, because such IPv6 addresses can not be
        scalably routed in inter-domain routing; in intra-domain, this
        requires manual configuration or running BSR (for ff01::/16 or
        ff02::/16 or the like)

Maybe rather use ff05::/16 and ff08::/16 since you wouldn't route or 
require any configuration for scope 1 and 2 to work.

 From draft:

    o  How can the servers demultiplex "queries" sent to these addresses?
       Are these messages in SAP format or something simpler?  The query
       must have an identifier (e.g., done by hashing a name?) which the
       server uses to know the client is interested in the server's
       multicast transmission.

Strictly speaking you shouldn't talk about SAP format I think. SAP is 
the protocol and the payload can be any format you like, where SDP is 
the one commonly used today.

Some bad sentences or grammar:

In abstract it says
    Typically applications developers have requested static IANA
                        ^^^

End of section 1:
    All of these issues are only relevant to Any Source Multicast (ASM),
    as SSM requires this information is known a priori.
                  that

    4.  "Intended for local only use" applications typically leak through
        to the IPv4 MSDP because there is no clear logic which ones
        should be global and which ones are local.
        ^^^^^^^^^^                     ^^^^^^
should be or are in both places I think.

A few places you write "local scoped" instead of "locally scoped".

This might not sit well on the organization's local
                        ^^^^
with not on I think

Some typos:

scoping-friedly
assiginment

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:42:58 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

I've addressed your comments in my working copy.  Please check the 
non-trivial changes below:

(Btw, more review would also be cool :-)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Maybe rather use ff05::/16 and ff08::/16 since you wouldn't route or require 
> any configuration for scope 1 and 2 to work.

                 <t>This has issues with IPv6, because such IPv6 
addresses can not be scalably routed in inter-domain routing; in 
intra-domain for scopes larger than link-local, this requires manual 
configuration or running BSR.</t>

> This might not sit well on the organization's local

                 <t>This could be achieved e.g., by adding to the above 
SAP-like blocks from which the addresses could be dynamically 
reserved, either from a global or administratively scoped address 
range.  These might not sit well on the organization's local scoping 
plans, however.</t>

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/