Re: comments on ipv6-over-mstp

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <
alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Comments on draft  draft-lynn-6man-6lobac-00:
>
> - needs a section on multicast address mapping; it may not be
> straightforward: it may need to _not_ send all ip-multicasted messages to
> 255 link-layer address: the solicited-node multicast address includes the
> octet address (as opposed to eg ethernet 6octets) hence it could send it to
> that octet address (not 255).
>
> The current version is -01; see section 9

It is a non-goal (perhaps this should be stated explicitly in the I-D)
to modify the current MS/TP state machines (other than the
extension for larger data frames already proposed in BACnet).

The only currently available option is 255 (all-nodes).  We *could*
look at MS/TP as a multicast challenged data link and support
functions like NS via RFC 4861 extensions as discussed in
IPv6 ND Optimization for Energy-aware
Devices<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/slides/6man-8.pdf>

Plan B would be to look at using the 128-254 address range for
multicast mapping, but then we diverge from co-existence and
possibly need to modify state machines.

> - 1 Poll for Master - sounds as RS, why not mapping one into another?
>  2 Reply to Poll for Master sounds as RA, same.
>
> These are MAC control frames that are part of token generation
(or recovery from a lost token).  Again, modification of the MS/TP
MAC is a non-goal.  See section 2 for MS/TP MAC requirements.

> - MLD mapping could be as well useful.
>
> Can you say more about this?

Thanks, -K-

> Alex
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ipv6<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------
>