[Roll] Fwd: DHCPv6 option for MPL parameter configuration

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 14 January 2014 01:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:58:08 -0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUckoeJKkOZb=yqj368ayb2_jmcigsGW+FyrubqNvOhciQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp, matthew.gillmore@itron.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0444e9831cd93904efe486c5"
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, roll <roll@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: [Roll] Fwd: DHCPv6 option for MPL parameter configuration
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>

Hi,





*Related to the draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/>,
we asked for an opinion to DHC wg
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dhc/charter/>.Please read below for more
detail. Any comments are very welcome.Thanks and Regards,Michael and Ines.*
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
Date: 2013/12/17
Subject: Re: DHCPv6 option for MPL parameter configuration
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, "
tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com" <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>


 Hi:

 Thanks for asking …

 I don't see any problems with the proposed option format. You will need to
decide if using (what looks like) your own floating point format is worth
it (perhaps saving what looks to me like 7*2 (=14) bytes to use 32-bit
floating pointer numbers) is worth it.

 Please improve the IANA section to indicate which registry IANA should
assign from — see SolMax draft for language? There have been mistakes made
by IANA in the past and it is important to be clear about the registry they
must use!!

 I haven't studied the draft carefully and just looked at the option
definition section mostly. May have other comments later as I hope to look
at it more carefully.

 - Bernie

  From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:33 PM
To: Cisco Employee <volz@cisco.com>, Tomek Mrugalski <
tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: DHCPv6 option for MPL parameter configuration






* Hello  Bernie and Tomek, The  roll
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/> wg have a draft, which
specifies the Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (MPL)
that provides IPv6 multicast forwarding in constrained networks. Different
parameter configurations allow MPL to trade between dissemination latency
and transmission efficiency. [draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast/>] To
define a way to distribute these MPL Parameter Configuration option, it is
proposed uses a simple DHCPv6 option, which is defined in
draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration/>.
Please, we would like to have your advice whether It would be ok use a
DHCPv6 option to do that. Following draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines/?include_text=1>,
which would be the best option format for short floating point (section 5)?
should it use encapsulated options? Thank you very much in advance, Michael
and Ines. *

[Roll] Fwd: DHCPv6 option for MPL parameter confi… Ines Robles