Unicast-Prefix-Based IPv4 Multicast Addresses
draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-06
Yes
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Sean Turner)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-16)
Unknown
Please consider the Gen-ART Review by Francis Dupont on 2010-05-12:
- 1 page 3: assignment ... need -> assignments?
(please reread the statement and improve it)
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-16)
Unknown
I share Tim's concern that we need to explore the extent of IETF consensus on this proposal.
In particular there are not many m/c /8 left so we need to make sure the allocation is well used.
One limitation of the proposed method is that a small organization has an extremely limited number of m/c addresses that that can create by this mechanism. Did the WG consider, for example, the creation of a registry of organizations that wanted m/c addresses but which did not have a 16bit AS number, since this would have allowed greater flexibility in the number of m/c addresses an organization could own?
Also I had to stare at this figure
Bits: | 8 | Unicast Prefix Length | 24 - Unicast Prefix Length |
+-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+
Value: | TBD | Unicast Prefix | Group ID |
+-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+
for a while before I understood it and wonder if there is a better way to show this.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-07-08)
Unknown
The draft seems to imply that an organization must choose between these allocation methods. I don’t see why that is the case. Is there any reason that an AS can’t take advantage of both GLOP and the mechanism specified in this I-D? The idea that these mechanisms are complementary is no where to be found.