No Subject

[Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>]

Folks,

I would like to know what should best be done to recommend let's
say 239.232.0.0/16 as the default range to be used for admin-scope
SSM aplications.

Having such a recommended default SSM admin scope would quite help to
standardise on SSM application development and network configuration -
after all, there are not really any good alternatives to using admin-scope
SSM addresses for typical enterprise applications (per-channel boundaries
on global-scope SSM channels suck, private source ip addresses are too often
impractical on typical servers, content protection ignores network  issues,
etc, pp).

My thinking is that 239.232.0.0/16 will be good enough (2^16 SSM channels
per host) for all applications. It is also easy to remember as an SSM range,
and according to rfc2365 it is curently recommended to be an extension
to the IPv4 local scope and due to the allocation strategy of
rfc2365 (6.1.1) it should be pretty much unused everywhere - So
redesignating it as the recommended Organizational SSM scope would
most likely not conflict with any current assignments in practical use.

Comments ? I am fine with any /16 sub-range, but i would really like to see
if this could be agreed upon and made a BCP. I don't think that there's a
need to define any BCP for other than an organizational SSM scope right
now (eg: more than one level of admin scope addresses).

So, what should be done here to see if this argument can be progressed
into a BCP or not. Which WG would be best ? mboned, ssm ? Write an RFC
(one page ;-)) about it ? Should this be declared to be an update on rfc2365 ?


Thanks
    Toerless