From bkgmjo@gmx.net Wed May 8 05:34:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05F821F9323 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 05:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j3FLI64-KkPi for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 05:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09E821F92F7 for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 05:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.27]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lex3B-1UCsNW1rGJ-00qhZf for ; Wed, 08 May 2013 14:34:29 +0200 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 May 2013 12:34:29 -0000 Received: from essn-4db642f8.pool.mediaWays.net (EHLO bkgmjoPC) [77.182.66.248] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 08 May 2013 14:34:29 +0200 X-Authenticated: #6918816 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/vsM5A+E3vsH3ncrR1PRVYPshW3RhFWU0qPfRMZJ VZuFKXtlPufi9N Message-ID: <5112BCFEEFF44A56AF10B5C381409DC7@bkgmjoPC> From: "Jan Ollmann" To: Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:34:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE4BF9.23BC83A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: [MBONED] hi X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 12:36:46 -0000 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE4BF9.23BC83A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey there, I am not sure if I am right here but some IANA support person said = people here could help me find out who operates a specific multicast = network. Is this correct? ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE4BF9.23BC83A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey there,

I am not sure if I am right here but some IANA support person said = people=20 here could help me find out who operates a specific multicast network. = Is this=20 correct?

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE4BF9.23BC83A0-- From gjshep@gmail.com Wed May 8 07:34:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A518021F930A for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 07:34:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sx3FWID7vEWC for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 07:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com (mail-oa0-f41.google.com [209.85.219.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8183921F926E for ; Wed, 8 May 2013 07:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k1so2110024oag.14 for ; Wed, 08 May 2013 07:33:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2sOjRmR7ChZYiWLJy/co5XbqqzMcb9x7KBZUAGDynns=; b=o47ttAnJ4dUuYi0XEK5lY6GpE3Y3jhFq0akWM+Dn4HeJqEQUr670j4QXpEQok5ga5/ dmjahtXV1ul98EghYIR9nlR74nPO7FgD5vrR614wTYTfKNR+1v4L8mVe5EsEPUE1PHj1 59ezw6HAxNTCp7PDO1aOoLPnGb1VnyNGEcfz8rBpKy24J89sI6XvWXOOqKpRi25m0pGf LvxvU7ToJh0lsAtYaToDSpnEfrGYSTe0I/wzlNzNBFV5Zlko7tHTOLNpmR1lOseZtZx6 +oKEVEX3DLpUgpB7AVNqGLb8uMBgDpUKNxuuizKlRKYlKrygG2c3U+OzgUnjqpocCYn8 SpLA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.60.10 with SMTP id d10mr2146092oer.6.1368023637112; Wed, 08 May 2013 07:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.83.104 with HTTP; Wed, 8 May 2013 07:33:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5112BCFEEFF44A56AF10B5C381409DC7@bkgmjoPC> References: <5112BCFEEFF44A56AF10B5C381409DC7@bkgmjoPC> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 07:33:56 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Shepherd To: Jan Ollmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294802ef3e7304dc35d248 Cc: "mboned@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [MBONED] hi X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 14:34:01 -0000 --089e01294802ef3e7304dc35d248 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It's a start. For what are you looking? Greg On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Ollmann wrote: > Hey there, > > I am not sure if I am right here but some IANA support person said people > here could help me find out who operates a specific multicast network. Is > this correct? > > _______________________________________________ > MBONED mailing list > MBONED@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned > > --089e01294802ef3e7304dc35d248 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It's a start. For what are you looking?

Greg

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Ollmann <<= a href=3D"mailto:bkgmjo@gmx.net" target=3D"_blank">bkgmjo@gmx.net> wrote:

Hey there,

=A0

I am not sure if I am right here but some IANA support person said peo= ple=20 here could help me find out who operates a specific multicast network. Is t= his=20 correct?

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

--089e01294802ef3e7304dc35d248-- From eckert@cisco.com Sat May 11 11:26:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62FE21F8574; Sat, 11 May 2013 11:26:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PUVWZr4FhVoA; Sat, 11 May 2013 11:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76CF221F8501; Sat, 11 May 2013 11:26:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2181; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368296761; x=1369506361; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version; bh=YBf1S4xVsFYs5eNZ0aT1nrFkU5a84A6+UVQmxcqa1vM=; b=Nvm/4gXqmkcNJ3qmyGlr0HO7mTtfjJ80oNl/tc+C0BT3cJqxxTmt2q46 q0oSQaB4MCe5erohwLxRL8wj1ToO/mI1wESiKEMdOq1u46rlPus7UfuVH sWQdVVagPOMFsy61SX56YR0Fb0oiPJZKmw5vfkLbnWcFOdftuIDlhmukl Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAA+NjlGrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABAEAqDBzfAIn8WdIIfAQEBBQEBNzQLGxIGCTQFEyIUE4gLDTO7LI1sgTyDXAOJGo4RAZE1gy8cPnEk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,653,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="78319580" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2013 18:25:43 +0000 Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4BIPgkk030512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 11 May 2013 18:25:42 GMT Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4BIPfik005361; Sat, 11 May 2013 11:25:41 -0700 Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id r4BIPeGB005352; Sat, 11 May 2013 11:25:40 -0700 Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 11:25:40 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Adrian Farrel Message-ID: <20130511182540.GV12184@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: bcain99@gmail.com, ah@TR-Sys.de, holbrook@arastra.com, mboned@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MBONED] [pim] Trying to clean-up an SSM Errata Report X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 18:26:05 -0000 Let me add mboned and the author of said errata. The author of this errata seems to claim inconsistency between 4607 and prior addressing standards (RFC3307, RFC4291). He also states: "I'm sure that RFC 4291 should NOT be called in question.". This to me implies that he is asking to have RFC4607 updated to remove these conflicts in RFC4607bis. IMHO: I have not been able to (in)validate the erratas author claims wrt. to the interpretation of the prior RFCs. I hope others on the lists can chime in. Assuming he is right on one or the other accounts: I would like to see a resolution that minimizes actual deployment/interoperability problems. Withdrawing address ranges deemed to be useable according to existing RFC4607 in an upcoming RFC4607bis definitely has the potentialy to create mayor disturbances in deployments relying on those addresses. If MBoned can clearly identify affected ranges known not to be deployed at all, then they could be redesignated, otherwise IMHO not. I have not seen any example of actual deployment/interoperability issues from the incompatibility of existing RFC4607 and its claimed conflicts with prior address architectures. It would be good if the author of the errata (or someone else) could provide some example of such breakage. If no real breakage could reasonably be claimed, i think RFC4607bis should grandfather in the ranges from RFC4607 and explain how we derived at them, and that they constitute unfortunate, but not caught violations of principle due to the a) human nature, b) IETF process or c) the complexity of the IPv6 address architecture. And grandfathering is not the same as questioning RFC4291. Cheers Toerless On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Take a look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=905 > > I can't make head or tail of what the appropriate resolution is. Advice please. > > And any ideas if there is a better place to discuss this. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From stig@venaas.com Mon May 13 10:21:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2BD21F9344; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:21:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-gV8BpbzncL; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:21:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7A121F931B; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D39482E2; Mon, 13 May 2013 19:21:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51912101.1090002@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:21:05 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Toerless Eckert References: <20130511182540.GV12184@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20130511182540.GV12184@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bcain99@gmail.com, ah@TR-Sys.de, holbrook@arastra.com, mboned@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MBONED] [pim] Trying to clean-up an SSM Errata Report X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:21:13 -0000 Hi On 5/11/2013 11:25 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Let me add mboned and the author of said errata. > > The author of this errata seems to claim inconsistency between 4607 and > prior addressing standards (RFC3307, RFC4291). He also states: "I'm sure that > RFC 4291 should NOT be called in question.". This to me implies that he is asking > to have RFC4607 updated to remove these conflicts in RFC4607bis. Med (copied) and I are trying to get some of these issues resolved, we have one draft (draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update) that will try to clarify and resolve some conflicts. We intent to discuss some of these SSM issues mentioned here as well. We will probably both on the list and in the next IETF meeting try to discuss some of these issues. We've been focusing on how the flag bits are used, and one of the cases is the use of the transient flag and SSM. Perhaps this thread is a good opportunity to move forward on this topic. One question in particular, is whether the T bit should be allowed to be 0 for SSM, and whether the IANA SSM assignments (non-yet) should have T=0. Stig > IMHO: > > I have not been able to (in)validate the erratas author claims wrt. to > the interpretation of the prior RFCs. I hope others on the lists can chime > in. Assuming he is right on one or the other accounts: > > I would like to see a resolution that minimizes actual deployment/interoperability > problems. > > Withdrawing address ranges deemed to be useable according to existing RFC4607 > in an upcoming RFC4607bis definitely has the potentialy to create mayor > disturbances in deployments relying on those addresses. If MBoned can clearly > identify affected ranges known not to be deployed at all, then they could be > redesignated, otherwise IMHO not. > > I have not seen any example of actual deployment/interoperability issues > from the incompatibility of existing RFC4607 and its claimed conflicts > with prior address architectures. It would be good if the author of the errata > (or someone else) could provide some example of such breakage. > > If no real breakage could reasonably be claimed, i think RFC4607bis should > grandfather in the ranges from RFC4607 and explain how we derived at them, > and that they constitute unfortunate, but not caught violations of > principle due to the a) human nature, b) IETF process or c) the complexity > of the IPv6 address architecture. And grandfathering is not the same as > questioning RFC4291. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Take a look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=905 >> >> I can't make head or tail of what the appropriate resolution is. Advice please. >> >> And any ideas if there is a better place to discuss this. >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pim mailing list >> pim@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > From lenny@juniper.net Wed May 15 12:08:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E33B21F924A for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 12:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49BZ3an9dUfp for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 12:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F51F21F922A for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 12:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZPdEK99iT5Q2DLhDjw5n6posmmly1BK@postini.com; Wed, 15 May 2013 12:08:03 PDT Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:49:01 -0700 Received: from eng-mail01.juniper.net (eng-mail01.juniper.net [172.17.28.114]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id r4FIn0L62957; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:49:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net) Received: by eng-mail01.juniper.net (Postfix, from userid 1709) id EDF2D1145A; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eng-mail01.juniper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20F31144F; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:48:59 -0700 From: Leonard Giuliano To: MBONED WG Message-ID: <20130515114712.S57566@eng-mail01.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed Subject: [MBONED] Call for agenda items in MBONED in Berlin X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:08:09 -0000 If you would like to present anything at MBONED in Berlin, please let Greg and me know what you'd like to cover and how much time you'd like. Thanks, MBoned Chairs