- IP-WG, Two new files have been uploaded for our Add. AJ discussions today. Both files are in the Add. AJ folder in the Yahoo group, hereMessage 1 of 1 , Dec 5, 2012View Source
Two new files have been uploaded for our Add. AJ discussions today. Both files are in the Add. AJ folder in the Yahoo group, here.
1) Comment responses, rev 4. This revision has responses for all of the comments. We discussed comment key 5563 in Atlanta and it was rejected. Since Atlanta, a draft response has been created for comment key 5567. The response is based on the research I've done since the Atlanta meeting.
2) Add. AJ PPR3, draft 4. This revision has the following changes:
> Clause X.4 has been expanded to include and describe all of the possible multicast address scope, even the reserved and unassigned scopes.
> Clause X.4 includes a paragraph discussing which multicast address to use, at a minimum, and that anything that requires administration by IT is a local matter.
It's my intention that the assignment of the IPv6 multicast address will be based on a property in the NPO. The use of dynamically assigned multicast addresses is based on functionality in IPv6 routers that isn't widely deployed (yet), but I think we should allow for it somehow. This is the crux of what comment key 5567 is getting at, I believe.
The use of Rendezvous Points (embedded or not) is also reliant on special functionality in IPv6 routers. Again, this may or may not be deployed at a given site. In my view, we're not disallowing it, and it may be put into place by setting the multicast address property of the NPO to a value that includes information about the Rendezvous Point -- that is, a multicast address which has the R bit set to 1.