Re: SSM Address Space

[jhall@UU.NET (Jeremy Hall)]

sounds fine to me...I think people using SSM should use 232 regardless and
figure out how to do their own scoping.

_J

In the new year, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Hello;
> 
>    In the SSM meeting yesterday there was a little discussion about
> the SSM address space. Now, I think that using something other than 
> 232/8 for Global scope SSM iss a VERY bad idea. Everyone should know
> how hard it is to get the whole Internet to coordinate on something -
> you would then for sure have domains that multicast peer using SSM on one
> side and ISM on the other for the same address range - which would be bad
> for interoperability and for deployment.
> 
>    Having said that, I can easily see that as SSM applications become available,
> then people will want to use them for administratively or ttl scoped
> address ranges.
> Since it's localized, you can do what you want and not worry about interfering
> with other peoples deployments.
> 
>    So, shouldn't the (framework?) draft state something like
> 
> SSM applications with global scope MUST be restricted to the 232/8
> address range.
> Applicatations in the 239/8 address range, or in other restricted scope
> address 
> ranges, MAY use SSM as desired; however, the administrator of the scoped address
> space MUST ensure that SSM trees do not cross the scope domain boundaries.
> 
> 
>                                    Regards
>                                    Marshall Eubanks
> 
>    Multicast Technologies, Inc.
>    10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 201
>    Fairfax, Virginia 22030
>    Phone : 703-293-9624          Fax     : 703-293-9609     
>    e-mail : tme@on-the-i.com     http://www.on-the-i.com
>