| Re: Issue 154: Should we use IPv4 Multicast Address? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun |
|
| Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:32:43 -0700 (PDT) | |
Given the lack of interest or objections to my proposal to reject this issue, I will consider it closed. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:55 PM To: capwap [at] frascone.com Cc: Pasi.Eronen [at] nokia.com Subject: [Capwap] Issue 154: Should we use IPv4 Multicast Address? Pasi's comment was: Section 3.3: Should IPv4 use a well-known multicast address (instead of broadcast), too? Why not? I'm not very familiar with the registration of a well-known multicast address. From what I can find at http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses, the procedure must be very much the same as any other address space. That said, this has never come up by any AC/WTP vendor before, so I question whether the change is necessary. My response to Pasi on his "Why not?" is that our product has never, nor never will, do this. I can't speak for others, and will let them chime in. Thoughts? PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
-
Issue 154: Should we use IPv4 Multicast Address? Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), July 28 2008
- Re: Issue 154: Should we use IPv4 Multicast Address? Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), August 14 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.