Re: [Roll] Fwd: Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-02

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

I think your suggested changes to the Trickle Multicast draft point out
why IP in IP tunneling is needed.

Don



On 10/29/12 3:44 AM, "peter van der Stok" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>Dear WG,
>
>
>Attached my suggestions for text modifications including some nits. I
>used the facilities of word to edit and comment text with traces.
>
>When writing text about MC scope and MC domain, I was puzzled by the
>all MPL forwarders multicast address which removes the possibility to
>address a given multicast group. We expect multiple (possibly disjunct)
>MC groups in our wireless networks.
>Also I failed to understand why encapsulation was necessary once the
>message was received by the seed.
>To make it possible to configure the interface with one MC scope I
>added the possibility to use Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast
>Addresses (RFC 3306).
>
>
>Probably, I overlooked many aspects which make the suggestions
>impractical, but I hope that the intention is clear.
>
>Peter van der Stok
>
>Michael Richardson schreef op 2012-10-25 23:30:
>> I suggest that you propose specific text to the list to modify the
>> document.
>_______________________________________________
>Roll mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll