Re: [Roll] Discussion/Comments For draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03

["Jonathan Hui (johui)" <[e-mail]>]

MPL targets LLNs (as the L in MPL indicates).  Today's LLNs typically communicate over shared media, but I don't see any reason why LLNs (and MPL) should be limited to shared media.

--
Jonathan Hui

On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan
> 
> so do you mean the MPL is for both shared and non shared mediums, and
> using Trickel for the mulicast purpose
> 
> AB
> 
> On 1/28/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> While RFC 6206 is particularly concerned about communication over shared
>> media, Trickle is not specific to communication over shared media.
>> 
>> --
>> Jonathan Hui
>> 
>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear I-D Authors,
>>> 
>>> I done a little review so far and need answers to continue, as the
>>> ROLL chair asked for some discussion on our WG draft, which I will try
>>> to do so far.
>>> 
>>> I see that the draft's applicability statement does not include
>>> *shared medium*, but the *trickel algorithm* works for shared medium,
>>> which in RFC6206 states that in the abstract. So if this MPL uses
>>> trickel do you think it still will work in a non-shared communication
>>> medium LLN, Please advise?
>>> 
>>> otherwise I recommend to add the words as in trickel: *lossy shared
>>> medium*
>>> As in the appplicability statement section 3
>>> 
>>> AB> Recommend Amend to>
>>> This protocol is an IPv6 multicast forwarding protocol for nodes in
>>> shared medium within the low-power and lossy network domain. By
>>> implementing a controlled dissemination using the Trickle algorithm,
>>> this protocol is designed for networks that
>>> communicate using low-power and lossy links with widely varying
>>> topologies in both the space and time dimensions.
>>> 
>>> AB> question on section 3> I am not sure I understand *the space and
>>> time dimensions*, Do you mean that the topology or multicast-nodes
>>> is/are changing in space, please give me an example use-case?
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> AB
>>> 
>>>>> On 1/22/13, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/report/8
>>>>> contains the list of open tickets.  There are some threads
>>>>> linked in each ticket.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/103
>>>>> trickle-mcast: suppress ICMP messages for PROACTIVE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07424.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> This ticket has had no significant discussion.  Is there an issue
>>>>> here?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/104
>>>>> security considerations.
>>>>> We need to have a discussion about what are the implications
>>>>> of this protocol.  See next message.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/105
>>>>> trickle-mcast: how to determine scope of MPL domain
>>>>> We have several options from Robert Craigie in the ticket system.
>>>>> Alternatives 3 and 4 were discussed, and I think that we preferred
>>>>> option 4 with the multicast option always present.
>>>>> Please post if you disagree.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/106
>>>>> trickle-mcast: always use 6in6 encapsulation for non-link-local
>>>>> multicast
>>>>> no clear resolution, but ticket #105 suggests answer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/108
>>>>> trickle-mcast: should there be an explicit version field?
>>>>> suggested answer was YES.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/107
>>>>> trickle-mcast: should multiple parameter sets be supported
>>>>> my conclusion: There is has been little discussion about this
>>>>>    issue. My inclination is to not include multiple sets at this
>>>>>    time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/109
>>>>> trickle-mcast: should all MPL packets be destined to all-MPL-forwarders
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>