IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

"Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 15 October 2013 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E08621E80C7 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mIjYWqxeymyv for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A7F11E818C for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2181; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381855045; x=1383064645; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=XU9skf6/4MnD3CtWCe5FE6Xth7cgn5/sauqhaHXoRyU=; b=gVXdvHLCGZYvcDS2G3v1lnvkeFtbrFBsR75lDlFl6Ox+EPExnSW/4gBT O5BK7nAUqb8k2JZARjTx3YlQYkW9WpS3GWlzbt8Zvn0Ifd3BYKTnGsbG5 ux/ACUWiWhKiZCx8xjpe2J850H3grri4JDgdEstw20HNriaB2SbubVR2F U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAExuXVKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABQCoMHOFLCKYEiFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQsCAQgYChQQJwslAgQOBQiHbAMJBgyzUAWJbwSOB4EQAjEHgx+BBgOqBoFmgT6CKQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,500,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="272390241"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2013 16:37:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9FGbOqA020621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:37:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.229]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:37:24 -0500
From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
Thread-Index: AQHOyQm0EEMO5JOK1Ei62VsuFuvrVZn2Io2AgAACdYCAABu3AIAACbeAgAAA9IA=
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:37:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301BE0FA1@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
References: <CE82BA46.24343%d.sturek@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <CE82BA46.24343%d.sturek@att.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.155.136.73]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B7575DFC9BFF9442AEC22662651F228E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mariainesrobles@gmail.com" <mariainesrobles@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:37:32 -0000

On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:33 AM 10/15/13, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> 
> We should leave in scope 4 for use in administratively scoped domains.
> This would allow applications to define specific multicast addresses using
> scope 4 without having to go through the trouble to "un-reserve"
> adminstrative scope.
> 
> Also, I am in favor of Ralph's proposal on using PAN ID for MPL scope 3.
> I don't see how any automatic configuration could take place if we can't
> identify a concrete identifier for the scope.  The other alternative (and
> to be honest the one I thought we were going to use) is DODAG ID.   This
> would allow your scenario where a subnet of different link technologies
> could support MPL domain 3.

Don - at present, MPL is, as far as I know, independent of RPL.  In particular, MPL can be used in a mesh that does not use RPL.  Therefore, there might not be a DODAG ID to use as a MPL domain identifier.

- Ralph

> 
> Don
> 
> 
> On 10/15/13 8:59 AM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:
>>> At some point, I think it would be interesting to see multicast
>>> forwarding rules in a mesh network where flooding is not used.  I
>> would
>>> see that case as the example of where scope 4 would be used.
>> 
>> okay, so when we write a new protocol, we can specify this.
>> Why have the code there to support scope-4 when there is no other
>> behaviour?
>> 
>>> I know that a lot of work is needed in defining the rules for
>>> forwarding when flooding is not used but in a large mesh network,
>> there
>>> would be a lot of benefit to such a feature.
>> 
>> Do you agree with me about PANID vs Subnet or not?
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email