Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt

Hello Tim;

The 6TiSCH architecture documents a use case whereby a large (RPL based) LLN is federated by an higher speed backbone such as Ethernet that mostly spans the LLN.
The LLN is partitioned by RPL in multiple DODAGs, and the roots of the DODAGs connect to the backbone to provide end to end connectivity over the formed multilink subnet.
The LLN probably forms a single RPL Domain though we have not discussed that yet. Discussing with Ralph, I understand that the RPL domain is 03 and the whole multilink subnet is 04.
It results that we cannot address a single RPL instance or a single DODAG as a scope. The intersection with 802.15.4 PAN-ID still troubles me a bit but that's another thread. 

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk] 
Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 03:21
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Brian Haberman; Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; 6lo@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt

On 14 Nov 2013, at 05:51, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hello Brian:
> 
> 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from admin. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 though in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whether we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is probably something we want to clarify.

Are there use cases documented somewhere in a 6lo or 6lo-related draft?

I'm interested as we're updating the homenet text about multicast scopes.  We have agreed some text in principle with Brian for that, but it's interesting because we may, indeed are likely to, have 6lo networks within future IPv6 home networks.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] 
> Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt
> 
> Pascal,
> 
> On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
>> The document has been accepted as a WG work item.  Check out 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0
>> 2.txt
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Ralph:
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -specific going -local.
>>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?.
>>> 
>>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to have a sentence saying that?
>>> 
> 
> Scopes are still nested.  See RFC 4007.  Are you saying that this document is changing that?
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------