Re: [Roll] MPL draft 2
"Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com> Tue, 30 October 2012 17:21 UTC
Return-Path: <johui@cisco.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 B450721F8728 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+X2zBUwYuv2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D8421F8719 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1710; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1351617699; x=1352827299; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=iuhvmMId6iUW/fgSTeW0IXtjB8h6ZExIldr+XGnQTnw=; b=AgqMblvJA/BACZ51j68Z0i1MNz68b7qbAzP1AYOOOE+JMUv7hfVAv05N Je2HUv2lcBIizCgSzKcpK3ovdmz0Nec80qiURAMSPQc72g6FW7IjjyMmX 5w34/veMSntj0aL0UJVWYi08Rf5G3XpJSpv+2eOyFJ37cmlYeCwuAdIHp Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EADUMkFCtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABEw1yBCIIeAQEBAwESAScPMAULAgEIIgISCQcyFBECBA4FCBqHXgadCY9nkDeLdxQBhWdhA6RMgWuCb4FbAR8e
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,680,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="137015516"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2012 17:21:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9UHLc5Q000581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:21:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.200]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:21:38 -0500
From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com>
To: "<consultancy@vanderstok.org>" <consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Thread-Topic: MPL draft 2
Thread-Index: AQHNtsMEHcLYGZ8J2EujWKNAgfQKeA==
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:21:37 +0000
Message-ID: <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF0F6E50D3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <b63ab06f593adc7994e625697c10d341@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <b63ab06f593adc7994e625697c10d341@xs4all.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.107.155.10]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19320.004
x-tm-as-result: No--31.775000-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <CBDB448B87CA464480ED53F6DF9951E7@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: richard kelsey <richard.kelsey@silabs.com>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] MPL draft 2
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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, 30 Oct 2012 17:21:39 -0000
Hi Peter, If I understand correctly, you would like to configure MPL multicast scope zones by having MPL forwarding interfaces subscribe to different IPv6 multicast addresses. That is fine with me, but only works when using IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation. If you want to limit the scope of MPL multicast packets that do not use IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation, we can't rely on the IPv6 Destination Address since that is set by the source of the original multicast packet. Thoughts? -- Jonathan Hui On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:53 AM, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Hi Jonathan and Richard, > > thanks for the new MPL draft. During a first reading I had some problems with the domain concept. > I understood that a domain may be composed of several link-local scopes. > When configuring an interface with one link-local scope I should like to reject link-local multicasts which come from link-local neigbors that do not belong to the domain for which the interface is configured. For example: closely spaced wireless nodes which have different edge routers. To express the domain in the multicast address were you thinking of "transient" and "unicast prefix based" mc addresses with format ff32::prefix:group?. Configuring the interface with a link-local scope limited to one prefix may cover the domain concept adequately. > > In my opinion some text on interface configuration to implement packet rejection based on Mc domain will be useful. > > Greetings > > Peter > > -- > Peter van der Stok > mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org > www: www.vanderstok.org > tel NL: +31(0)492474673 F: +33(0)966015248
- [Roll] MPL draft 2 peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] MPL draft 2 Jonathan Hui (johui)
- Re: [Roll] MPL draft 2 peter van der Stok