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

Hi Ulrich,

I don't think the Trickle Multicast draft would be too different even if a
/128 was used instead of the "all MPL forwarders"

Don

From:  Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
Reply-To:  Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Date:  Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:31 PM
To:  Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc:  "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject:  Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 -
subnet-local

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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll