[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IESG review: MC address

To: tgleeson@cisco.com
Subject: Re: IESG review: MC address
From: takei@csm.jcsat.co.jp
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:31:52 +0900 (JST)
Cc: Emmanuel.Duros@UDcast.com, udlr@sophia.inria.fr
In-Reply-To: <4.1-J.20000815111608.0211dab0@diablo.cisco.com>
References: <3989AD81.2E64D782@UDcast.com> <4.1-J.20000815111608.0211dab0@diablo.cisco.com>

From: Tim Gleeson <tgleeson@cisco.com>
Subject: IESG review: MC address
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:16:46 +0900
Message-ID: <4.1-J.20000815111608.0211dab0@diablo.cisco.com>

tgleeson> > 4. > "DTCP announcement" multicast group is 224.0.1.124.
tgleeson> > 
tgleeson> > Seems like a link-local address would be more appropriate
tgleeson> > (224.0.0.x).
tgleeson> 
tgleeson> Maybe. But we've got 224.0.1.124.

I agree with IESG comment. But, it is also fact that we have got
224.0.1.124. I don't know that it would be large problem. Should we
change this?
--
NTT-SC/JSAT
Jun Takei

References:
- draft-ietf-udlr-lltunnel-04.txt
  - From: Emmanuel Duros <Emmanuel.Duros@UDcast.com>
- IESG review: MC address
  - From: Tim Gleeson <tgleeson@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: IESG review: direct MAC encapsulation
Next by Date: Re: IESG review: applicability
Prev by thread: IESG review: MC address
Next by thread: IESG review: direct MAC encapsulation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread