Unicast-Prefix-Based IPv4 Multicast Addresses
RFC 6034
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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.