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)

On 23 October 2013 22:38, Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:21 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
>
>> At Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:56:46 -0400,
>>
>> Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps we want to go a step farther and take the zone boundary text
>> > out of RFC 4007 altogether?
>>
>> Basically works for me.
>
> <RCC>Me too</RCC>

>
>>
>> > OLD:
>> >
>> >   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
>> >      link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
>> >      administrators
>> >
>> > NEW:
>> >
>> >   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
>> >      addressing architecture.
>>
>> With a reference (it's currently RFC 4291)?
>>
>> I'd also note that not all points described in the RFC 4007 text are
>> described in RFC 4291 (at least not very clearly).  So, not just
>> remove the text from RFC 4007, I'd like to unify it in the address
>> architecture, e.g. update the following part of RFC 4291:
>>
>>
>>          Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
>>          administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
>>          from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
>>          configuration.
>>
>> as follows:
>>
>>
>>          Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
>>          administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
>>          from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
>>          configuration.  For all non-reserved scopes except the global
>>          scope, the zone boundaries must also be administratively
>>          configured.
>>
>> I think this statement is self-contradictory.  When automatic
> configuration is
> discussed, it is in relation to zone boundaries.  Here's an attempt to
> explain
> this without negations:
>
>     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.
>
<RCC>
That makes it clear. IMO RFC4007 should be changed to something like:

o  Each interface on a node comprises a single zone of interface-local
scope (for multicast only).

o  Each link and the interfaces attached to that link comprise a single
zone of link-local scope (for both unicast and multicast).

o  Multiple links and the interfaces attached to those links may form a
multilink-local scope based on underlying network technology; for example,
[cite the IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 definition].

o  There is a single zone of global scope (for both unicast and multicast)
comprising all the links and interfaces in the Internet.

o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
link-local, multilink-local and global must be defined and configured by
network administrators.

Either that or just remove the text as Ralph suggested earlier.
</RCC>

>
> BTW, just my opinion, but "Realm-Local" might be more meaningfully named
> "Multilink-Local"
>
<RCC> I agree - it is more meaningful</RCC>

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