[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt feedback
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 13:20:03 -0700
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:58, Fred Baker wrote:
> >
> > Why are site-local or organization-local even on the table?
>
> An excellent question. In light of the absence, which you note, of any kind of multicast routing to/from residential networks, it seems to me that service provider edge routers are-- in actual practice-- global multicast zone boundaries today. But that need not always be the case. Call me a dreamer, but I'm not willing to stand up and recommend that we brick up the residential side of the first-mile multicast link just yet.
>
There's quite a lot of IPTV interest in the .au market at the moment,
and one of the branded service wholesale IPTV providers to ISPs is
using IPv4 multicast to deliver it. The provider is originating the
multicast traffic outside the ISP networks, so in an IPv6 context I
think the scope for that traffic would need to be global. To avoid
using a global scope for that, it probably wouldn't be hard to
re-originate the content at the IPv6 layer within the ISP's network,
changing it's scope at the same time. However for that to work I think
that would mean that scope for the traffic would be organization local,
with the organisation including residential subscribers networks.
Related to this topic, the TR-124_Issue-2.pdf document from the BBF,
via Fred's ftp server, says -
"LAN.MLD.ROUTED. The device MUST default to not sending MLD messages for
scope of 0 through 8."
> I'm really not sure why people seem to think that subscribers ought to be lumped into the same organizational zone as their service provider. I must need to be educated about operational considerations again.
>
>
> --
> james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
> member of technical staff, communications engineering
>
>
>