Subject: WG Action - 1 week to discuss [LL13] If the destination is a global multicast address a host SHOULD use a global source address

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:55:59 +0100 (CET)

This issue wil be discussed for 1 week, ending March 6, 2003.  Please
post to the zeroconf mailing list so we can arrive at a consensus
action.

Note that since LL23 has been accepted, this issue should be accepted as
well.  The question is:  Does this go without saying?

The issue is given at http://www.spybeam.org/ll13.html and reproduced
here for the record:

Description of Issue  If the destination is a global multicast address a
host SHOULD use a global source address    
Submitter Name  Erik Nordmark
Submitter Email Address  [email-masked]    
Date first submitted 6 Feb 2003    
Reference
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/zeroconf/2002-10/msg00000.html
Comment Type ['T'echnical | 'E'ditorial]  T    
Priority['S' Must fix | '1' Should fix | '2' May fix ]  S    
Section 2.6
Rationale/Explanation of issue:   

Lengthy description of problem: 

If the destination address is the 255.255.255.255 broadcast address or a
multicast address, then the host may use either its link-local source
address or a routable address, as appropriate.

OK for a link-local multicast destination. But for other multicast
destinations I assume it SHOULD use any routable address instead of the
link-local. 

Requested Change: 

If the destination address is the 255.255.255.255 broadcast address or a
link-local multicast address, then the host may use either its
link-local source address or a routable address, as appropriate. If the
destination address is a multicast address with scope larger than
link-local then the host SHOULD use an appropriate routable source
address, if available, or its link-local source address otherwise.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:14:38 +0700

Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:55:59 +0100 (CET)
    From:        Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.SOL.3.96.1030227133908.22902J-100000@field>

  | Note that since LL23 has been accepted, this issue should be accepted as
  | well.  The question is:  Does this go without saying?

It has already been said, so it is too late for that ... but yes,
accept this issue.

kre