IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

"Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <johui@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 C6DF121F9CE3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 VhPqCD4LxweJ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0E621F9CC2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9354; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373604683; x=1374814283; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=T6xPbX0jDb8TZnqeJDhdkxPWSBwMb1pzE9lSL3Yqn48=; b=Nhq4uv66kkQuO5o2WY+xes0lYSN8pOBpvSQ2OgvGxTmRW9W5l3A7F6LB X8ZwzSZO8akg123hahd9jNuugh3TgStG9LZ2P8cnX+H5R6Zuq+AmnI6vD u+meQm2KWpUGmydoV2rDpKoSY7Y+4MOf6LHeDmsbFnorEqB+8TxLBl1tw g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYFAGCK31GtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagwY0T4QktHqIMoEHFnSCIwEBAQICAQEBZAcLEAIBCBgKHQcnCxQRAgQOBQgTh3QMtxMDBgGPKS0EB4MJbAOIb5AXkCSDEYIo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,650,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="233695062"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2013 04:51:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6C4pKvd011339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:51:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.56]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:51:20 -0500
From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com>
To: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
Thread-Index: AQHOfrtzvRsglLn1TEGc7XI6qmBNyQ==
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:51:19 +0000
Message-ID: <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF2794C0CD@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <CAK=bVC_FSDU4a15j=akvhvWtKyq4Kms_yAMu91RCMtQDcca4LA@mail.gmail.com> <CE04C272.220FE%d.sturek@att.net> <CAK=bVC-Aau9F8XpYL67VTq8FJ3oiAS=BxwZUuMW8H0E=CNYYYw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK=bVC-Aau9F8XpYL67VTq8FJ3oiAS=BxwZUuMW8H0E=CNYYYw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.79.53]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF2794C0CDxmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:51:28 -0000

The issue at hand is defining a new multicast scope.  Any multicast scope greater than link-local covers multiple links by definition.

Or are you simply saying that you disagree with Michael's suggestion and would prefer a name other than "subnet"?

--
Jonathan Hui

On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name<mailto:ulrich@herberg.name>> wrote:

Hi Don,

The IETF has already documented a solution in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889
(using /128 prefixes)

I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago:
http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf

Regards
Ulrich



On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote:
Hi Ulrich,

I think the multi-link subnet is an unfortunate side effect of route over
mesh protocols.

I would be interested in hearing of any solution around this since we (the
folks implementing ZigBee IP) seemed to have to go through a lot of
trouble over multi-link subnets.....

Don


On 7/11/13 5:40 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name<javascript:;>> wrote:

>That's what I feared... I think it's an unfortunate decision.
>
>Btw, should that mean that RFC4903 should be obsoleted?
>
>Ulrich
>
>
>On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdroms@cisco.com<javascript:;>>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name<javascript:;>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson
>>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca<javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines
>>>>>scope
>>>>> 0x03 as:
>>>>
>>>>> 3  Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defined
>>>>> automatically from the network topology
>>>>
>>>>> To be confirmed: will this definition suffice for MPL?
>>>>
>>>> I think it is sufficient, because we understand what it means.
>>>> I am concerned about the word "Network"... which could mean anything
>>>>to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because the intent
>>>>is that
>>>> it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is using.  I
>>>>think that
>>>> is the term that is used in RFC4291.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that having a network-wide, multi-link subnet is a bad idea:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4903
>>
>> That decision has already been made and is carried through many
>>protocols..
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ulrich
>_______________________________________________
>Roll mailing list
>Roll@ietf.org<javascript:;>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<javascript:;>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email