[core] core/mboned/roll: (which) multicast routing proto/implementations for rfc7390 ff05::fd ?

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 29 April 2022 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E024C159A2B; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8fSRU0Ll52nR; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D07ACC159820; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9583958C4AF; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 823B04EAD46; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:29:10 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: core@ietf.org, mboned@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
Cc: anima@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Message-ID: <YmvaFvE1AiaRyawf@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/gc5ZayaOh2YsZnpTjspQcqZxn04>
Subject: [core] core/mboned/roll: (which) multicast routing proto/implementations for rfc7390 ff05::fd ?
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:29:22 -0000

Sorry for cross-posting, but this is one of those (set of) question(s) that likeley need it.

RFC7390 (and its -bis draft) define CoAP discovery via ASM IP Multicast request/reply
on ff0x::fd, with link-local (ff02::fd) for LANs and ff05::fd (Admin Scope) for L3 networks.

I am wondering what insight we have about actual use of the L3 version via ff05::fd:

- What multicast routing protocols do those networks use this type of resource discover ?
- Specifically wireless mesh networks ?
- Specifically 802.15.4 wireless mesh networks ?
- How many / which known 802.15.4 implementation do or do not support rfc7731 ?

Any insight welcome!

Background: In anima, two drafts are planning to rely on this ASM IP multicast method,
(draft-ietf-anima-constrained-{voucher,join-proxy}) and i have no good insight whether
it is prudent to expect that the mayority of target deployment would be able to
support this ASM IP multicast routing, or whether we would (worst case) create standard
RFC that will not be adopted purely because one dependency (ASM IP Multicast routing
for ff05::fd) fails to become supportable well enough in the target networks.

And my concerns stems from a range of experiences in challenges with getting ASM IP
multicast adopted in non-wireless-mesh networks, rfc8815 is one example (not directly
applicable here), rfc8766 and draft-ietf-dnssd-advertising-proxy are actual IETF work
also in response to the challenges with ASM IP multicast. 

But, as said, no direct experience with routed wireless mesh networks such as 802.15.4,
although i seem to remember that i was previously told by folks from ROLL that MPL
(rfc7731) was also not commonly supported in implementations.

Cheers 
    Toerless