[rbridge] All Rbridges Multicast Address

[J. R. Rivers]

I second that opinion.

JR
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 11:29 AM
> To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] All Rbridges Multicast Address
> 
> > Since we are an IETF Working group, it seems to me that we should  
> > apply
> > to IANA rather than to the IEEE for the All-Rbridges multicast  
> > address.
> > In fact, they are so plentiful that, as was discussed in the working
> > group earlier
> > (http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/trill-4/sld1.htm), I
> > can't see much reason not to apply for the next available 
> block of 16
> > addresses, probably 0x01005E900000 through 0x01005E90000F, 
> where ...0
> > would be the All-Rbridges multicast and the remaining 15 would be
> > reserved for future Rbridge use.
> 
> FYI, 0x00005e is the OUI used for *IPv4* multicast addresses (ala  
> 0x01005e). The IETF also has 0x233300 for IPv6 multicast addresses  
> (ala 0x333300).
> 
> It is of my opinion that any TRILL protocols that run right over an  
> ethertype should not use the above OUI-based multicast addresses.  
> That is, get an OUI from IEEE. Because right now IS-IS uses OUI  
> 0x0180c2 which is not IETF assigned.
> 
> And what's even more important, there may be assumptions in many  
> implementations that if a MAC begins with 0x01005c, the enclosing  
> packet is an IP packet. What comes to mind is IGMP-snooping 
> switches.  
> So let's just avoid this conflict or it will cause a lot of pain for  
> vendors and users of such equipment.
> 
> Dino
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>