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

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

I don't see how scope 3 (automatically configured) fits with your example.

There would need to be some administrative configuration to let these
devices know that the two PANs you have should be linked in one domain.

Don


On 10/15/13 9:08 AM, "Michael Richardson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>Ralph Droms (rdroms) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    > What is your definition for "subnet" that is compatible with the
>    > definition from draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes:
>
>    >   automatically configured, i.e., automatically derived from
>physical
>    > connectivity or other, non-multicast-related configuration.
>
>    > I chose PAN ID as a way of identifying a "subnet" within a
>distribution
>    > of MPL forwarders that might be within radio range of each other but
>    > should be in separate MPL domains.  For example, suppose I have MPL
>    > forwarders in my flat and you have MPL forwarders in your flat.
>How do
>    > my forwarders know they belong to the MPL domain in my flat while
>your
>    > forwarders know they belong to the MPL domain in your flat.  PAN ID
>    > would be one way to make that differentation.
>
>PANID is too restrictive in my opinion.
>
>I may well have a radio networks on the first floor of my (penthouse)
>flat,
>and another radio network on the second floor of my flat, connected by any
>number of wired (ethernet) or higher-powered wireless (wifi) layer-2
>technologies.  There are good radio reasons to use different PANIDs,
>because the isolation might be inconsistent.  The devices which connect my
>two floors know they are supposed to do that at the RPL level, and so
>subnet is the right thing.
>
>This is where we need to be prescriptive.
>
>--
>Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Roll mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll