Subject: RE: The Status of the ZEROCONF WG

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:43:06 -0700

> From: Aidan Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
[...]
> I support this.  At present I don't see major interest in ZMAAP,
> and I think a zeroconf host profile would probably be honoured
> more in the breach than the observance.
> 
> Localised multicast address allocation seems a lot easier in IPv6,
> and I don't see a compelling need to do the ipv4 work right now.

ZMAAP was how you'd do localized multicast address allocation in IPv6.
It was unclear from your response whether you support not doing 
localized multicast address allocation for IPv6 in the zeroconf WG,
but it sounds like that is what you're saying.

I think localized multicast address allocation is important 
wherever Any-Source Multicast (ASM) is important.  At present most of
the interest seems to be around Source-Specific Multicast (SSM),
and hence "no major interest" yet.

I suspect at some point ZMAAP (at least for IPv6) will need to be
done, but agree that there is not a pressing demand for it to be
done right now by the zeroconf wg.  Hence, I don't object to removing
it from the charter, but I think we'll still need it at some point 
in the future.

-Dave