Re: [ssm] what to say about scoping for v6

[Hitoshi Asaeda <Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr>]

>   Note that when forwarding or processing SSM, the scope of both S and G 
>   may have to be considered [SCOPED-ARCH]; in particular, if the unicast 
>   scope of S is smaller than respective multicast scope of G, the packets 
>   might end up forwarded outside of the scope of S.  Therefore, limited 
>   scopes should be avoided and must not be used as a security mechanism.

Although I didn't completely follow every mail of this subject, for
me, it is simple that;

       an end-node should not request any (S,G) join whose unicast
       address scope and multicast address scope are not same. If the
       kernel receives such request, it should discard it. Likewise,
       if a router receives such join request, it should also discard
       it.

Why isn't it reasonable?
--
Hitoshi Asaeda
_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm