IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] [IPv6] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-11

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 17 November 2022 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8F2C14CEEC; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 08:32:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5N4QUQlwSb5j; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 08:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0C6C14CF0A; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 08:32:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0364218015; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:58:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lU7kajGptPo9; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:58:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A5418010; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:58:03 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1668704283; bh=UqtUu72lv3fDa+sWbkrDJUq22/ef6BPKaR4CzMXKJpE=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=uWL3fZOHD9AVad9Fc3Xz3nvCgvxvY63acK4g3Fj38PTqDldpUZividvt0HdqfMjqg z9wUwpukuX4lITfvR746eHWleYoUnT8pwwM3rjQy9nbA0AkDJ7XRKsuy66JPwPAleT A1wAnHRDOEEOx9mzXK2zF1CWf8NWVbBZ4HfYtG4gRCZ5624ttVQQ8sVUe0mj0O8uhA EDjRlXH9h+IOU3QQHurKZMIgq4tFveI09dOQS34aHcIwGJ7b2lBAR98evDkfYeCo1G uRhByW5LAMoU+CR2V/QktmzoeCxXSj6rK9rvw2CUn9MgWFeo1CGqh3S6UfIpIhBjU9 WDgYDz3w1AUEw==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA26104; Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:32:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, "carles.gomez@upc.edu" <carles.gomez@upc.edu>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR11MB488180FB1C64F31CB61D3AFAD8069@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAUO2xxJ-Cksm6uL19LxpbH4q1nodCsKbUPUAd3UEH=SMRSokg@mail.gmail.com> <DU0P190MB1978629F28BA6FCDA71D8CF0FD079@DU0P190MB1978.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CO1PR11MB488180FB1C64F31CB61D3AFAD8069@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 11:32:45 -0500
Message-ID: <1417.1668702765@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/4UpoXkh51gbIEr7SQpRAEnMRX7Q>
Subject: Re: [6lo] [IPv6] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-11
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:32:57 -0000

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > Makes sense to me. What about:

I'm mostly happy with this, but maybe:

    >    In the case of LLNs, RPL [RFC6550] is the routing protocol of choice
    > and [RFC9010] specifies how the unicast address advertised with

Maybe this could mention other choices somewhere?
What about in the case of non-LLNs?  Would it work with OSPFv3?
Would it work for /128 prefixes on un-bridged wifi?

Could PASA make use of this? (I'm genuinely unclear)


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email