Subject: RE: uni-based-mcast and malloc-ipv6-guide

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:25:13 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 11:23 AM
> 
> > See RFC 2908.
> 
> At least that reference is missing from the document.
> But I see a mismatch between the draft and RFC 2908 since the latter
> seems to say that an application can request multicast addresses with
> a particular lifetime. With the uni-based addresses there can be no
> way for the application to request a lifetime.
> How can this be resolved?

What makes you think there isn't a way for the app to request a
lifetime?
RFC 2771 applies to all dynamic multicast addresses.
 
-Dave

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:11:25 +0200 (CEST)

> RFC 2771 applies to all dynamic multicast addresses.

Huh?

How does the application requesting a particular lifetime effect the
lifetime that the routers use when advertising the unicast prefix?

Are you envisioning some new protocol to inform the routers (and the system
admin, ISP, RIR) that allocated the unicast prefix that it needs to
stay around for long enough to satisfy the applications request? :-)

So while there might be an abstract API that allows the application
to ask, the scheme in uni-based-mcast doesn't seem to have the pieces
so that the system can honor such a request; at least not with a strict
interpretation of the relationship between the RFC 2462 notion of lifetime
of the unicast prefix, and the presumed lifetime of the derived multicast'
address.

Hence my question whether the intent is to have such a strict relationship
or not.

   Erik