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

Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@silabs.com> Tue, 15 October 2013 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Richard.Kelsey@silabs.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 B843611E8201 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 X+1iobSWN9XC for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6194E11E8184 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxsause01.silabs.com ([66.193.122.70]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob105.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUl2d4ovME0+gOLnX7Kl9oj6yp4UskkzR@postini.com; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:56:20 PDT
Received: from EXCAUS010.silabs.com (unknown [10.100.0.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxsause01.silabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB54EFF103; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:56:17 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from kelsey-ws (10.4.148.34) by EXCAUS010.silabs.com (10.100.0.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:56:17 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:01:17 -0400
Message-ID: <87ppr6gv76.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com>
From: Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@silabs.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABOxzu2nLuny5uySEEdb6ji9ucE6xqGZ6DLe-mc6KUqVszNfFg@mail.gmail.com> (message from Kerry Lynn on Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:17:35 -0400)
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply
References: <3599.1381852752@sandelman.ca> <CE82BA46.24343%d.sturek@att.net> <CABOxzu2nLuny5uySEEdb6ji9ucE6xqGZ6DLe-mc6KUqVszNfFg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Originating-IP: [10.4.148.34]
Cc: roll@ietf.org, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, johui@cisco.com, rdroms@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [Roll] [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: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:56:39 -0000

> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:17:35 -0400
> From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
> 
> Link-local scope is essentially defined by a combination of link layer
> connectivity and routing behavior.  I believe we need something similar
> in order to automatically define scope 0x03.  To the extent that we need
> scope 0x03 at all, I think it's to emulate classic link-local behavior in a
> mesh.  There are only so many ways that meshes can be distinguished:
> either by location, frequency, or code diversity (assuming any two of
> three overlap).  In Ralph's example, he assumes location and frequency
> overlap.  In Michael's example, I suspect he assumes location and PAN
> ID overlap.
> 
> Finally, we may need to constrain Ralph's definition a bit further and
> define an 802.15.4  scope 0x03 zone as a set of interfaces that share
> a common PAN coordinator and PAN ID.
> 
> -K-

I think you have to fall back on routing behavior.  Consider a
mixed-PHY mesh, such as a a combination of 802.15.4 and PLC
links.  If the routing layer considers it all one mesh, then it
is, regardless of whether or not there are any 802.15.4 nodes in
direct communication using the same PAN ID.  On the other hand,
the routing layer could take the same physical setup and treat it
as distinct 802.15.4 meshes with PLC interconnects, in which case
you would get multiple 0x03 scopes.

  I shall not today attempt further to define 0x03 scope; and
  perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I
  know it when I see it.
                         (paraphrasing Justice Potter Stewart)

-Richard
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.  

Thank you.