Re: [MBONED] [homenet] [ieee-ietf-coord] Multicast on 802.11

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke-6man-mcast-not-efficient-01 may be
of interest in understanding some of the issues with IPv6 and wifi.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sure...
> But don't look at me, i don't remember i added that Cc:, i added mboned
> ;-))
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:15:49PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote:
> > Can we please remove [e-mail] from this conversation?
> > Once we as the IETF figure out what to write down and discuss, that'll
> be a
> > good time to interact,
> > but I think this conversation is really not the point of that list.
> >
> > It's already cc'd to mboned and homenet...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alia
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:43:56AM +0000, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> wrote:
> > > > Yes it is. IP over Foo must indicate if IP multicast over a link
> uses L2
> > > mechanisms or not.
> > > >
> > > > If not, a router learns from MLD the state it needs to figure to
> which
> > > devices it should copy a given packet.
> > >
> > > Well, the problem with WiFI is that L2 multicast  are useful under some
> > > conditions and not useful under others. And the conditions are more
> > > complex than boolean ;-)
> > >
> > > > For Wi-Fi, there is no multicast support and it is sufficiently clear
> > > now that relying on broadcast is not a good idea.
> > >
> > > Pretty sure you don't mean that. If you would eliminate ALL multicast,
> you
> > > didn't have discovery of new devices.
> > >
> > > > Rather, a good idea could be to build a multilink subnet with APs
> that
> > > are also routers to serve the wireless edge, whereby the Ethernet
> backbone
> > > can rely on L2 broadcast while the wireless edge is routed. Many LLNs
> work
> > > like this. Why should Wi-Fi be an exception?
> > >
> > > Thats why i asked what device model we need. Don't think i got an
> > > answer for that though. L3 homenet APs would be lovely. But will it
> > > be sufficient to ONLY support those theoretical devices in homenet ?
> > >
> > > > > Again, if if's IPs problem then if 802.11 would just clearly state
> > > that this is
> > > > > the case, then we have a way forward. I just hope 802.11 understand
> > > that
> > > > > it'll see a lot more unicast coming its way and be prepared to
> handle
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd hate this, IEEE telling IETF what to do. Just like IETF telling
> IEEE
> > > to do an immensely scalable L2 multicast support so that Solicited Node
> > > Multicast appears so cool on a switched fabric? Does not seem to work
> > > either.
> > >
> > > Sure.
> > >
> > > > The IETF has to decide if it wants to design IP over 802.11 - or
> Wi-Foo
> > > in general which would be my take. And then the IETF has to decide if
> it
> > > wants to design IP over a mix of Wi-Fi and Ethernet. IEEE people may
> join
> > > the effort so we do the job right.
> > >
> > > Getting IPv6 link signaling work with WiFi sucking L2 multicast
> > > is just a bit of work in the L2 IPv6 protocols that can be done
> > > IMHO without botrhering IEEE. Getting streaming multicast work
> > > best requires more L2 awareness and it doesn't seem homenet
> > > is interested in thast anyhow, so i think we're only going to get
> > > a solution for the L2 IPv6 signaling piece realistically in the
> > > IETF alone.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >     toerless
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > homenet mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> > >
>
> --
> ---
> Toerless Eckert, [e-mail]
>