IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re: [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local)

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Mon, 28 October 2013 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 D58B111E80E7; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 nrn8xtyuh9Dl; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9958C11E8153; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54307802A; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:49:44 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <526EBFD2.50806@venaas.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:49:38 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
References: <3599.1381852752@sandelman.ca> <CE82BA46.24343%d.sturek@att.net> <CABOxzu2nLuny5uySEEdb6ji9ucE6xqGZ6DLe-mc6KUqVszNfFg@mail.gmail.com> <525DC6C9.2010808@gridmerge.com> <CABOxzu2apwBRpU1h4mKJwpO+U+Y9Q_q-h5AhZ+hGzAdjdPdmUQ@mail.gmail.com> <525E5064.4050109@gridmerge.com> <CABOxzu0L-EY0iDGpAJ+ER15CPL-3v8F77ewn-G=gZYODixevZg@mail.gmail.com> <3CC8783F-F4DA-47B9-A051-DBBA6EF00C19@gmail.com> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301C067D0@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1daea916972b4e60be575e5f5276cb78@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301C06DD6@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqcyWMYw4NHS8xMu+JtWQwV8t97Lcf0BzC1Qe0zgmR4aMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqcyWMYw4NHS8xMu+JtWQwV8t97Lcf0BzC1Qe0zgmR4aMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:19:38 -0800
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re: [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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:49:48 -0000

Hi

On 10/28/2013 9:46 AM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:44:57 +0000,
> "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>>>    NEW:
>>>>
>>>>          Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries
>>>>          are automatically derived from physical connectivity or
>>>>          other, non-multicast related configuration.  Global scope has
>>>>          no boundary.  The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes
>>>>          are administratively configured.
>>>
>>> I disagree with the last sentence above.  Specifically
>>> "non-reserved" should be removed.  That is, we should not start
>>> precluding admin configuration of reserved scopes, given we didn't
>>> before.  They just didn't have defined names or uses, but they could
>>> have been used within private environments.
>>
>> Good catch.  So the last sentence should read:
>>
>>    The boundaries of all other scopes are administratively configured.
>
> First off, whether we include "non-reserved" or not, we should clarify
> this only applies to admin-local or larger.  So, e.g.
>
>     The boundaries of all other scopes of Admin-Local or larger are
>     administratively configured.
>
> Secondly, I don't think the "NEW" text (necessarily) precludes admin
> configuration of reserved scopes (in this context it specifically
> means scope 15).  With "non-reserved", I meant it specifically means
> scopes # 5-13.  It intended to not say about scope #15, rather than
> preclude admin configuration for it.  On the other hand, the suggested
> revised version  explicitly states that the boundaries of scope #15
> are administratively configured.  I don't know if that's what this
> scope was supposed to be.  If it was, then this version is okay.  If
> not, and if the "NEW" version was confusing, I suggest:
>
>    The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or
>    larger are administratively configured.  For reserved scopes, the
>    way of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the
>    semantics of the scope is defined.

I think this text might be fine. The main thing I want to say is that
manual configuration of unassigned scopes is fine (as long as not
reserved). But I don't think we want anyone to use reserved scopes in
any way. Scope #14 is global and I don't think we have a meaningful
way of using #15.

Stig

> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email