IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 16 July 2013 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 06BC821F8F78 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOeZ0hv3Zn05 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAFA21F8F29 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w56so1135313wes.25 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=ZGTZlmB4zoL9XvBnHW7dywQuT+Y6hMiDLcCTvmi9fgI=; b=hdjuKKgOb9f7mhp98dd/XmKavrbYm6xPUnDEpe/wCAhhY2u6Vdd9/XtIASjfgxwxFj zPHNtfnrLtR3NpWz62IzcIc2JWAjJ6bunYq+9+BqUQlVFMAvRu6c8Rx9cAF/sZEQL4I5 uCm83IXLfCDuOq2yQWfAAhqvuCJD1dxIT19quraOkqDzzM4mAdbJr7v03MabbVUMg/sy k+J2xW67XGjy3GRWG4YmYKnEAw3tSqxuuWmKe4El9QCFgj4YiNSkCQp6rFALJJNAzesc C4Blgq3nW++RXpFjjlFyvOlgWNArQqFVlq2nP58pgWWg+rB8s2vVqmldIyHcNyi9lkwE 83lw==
X-Received: by 10.194.19.130 with SMTP id f2mr2837242wje.22.1374015590422; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.172.185.236] ([212.183.128.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb2sm31079700wic.4.2013.07.16.15.59.49 for <roll@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841374DAF@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841374DAF@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329)
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:59:44 +0100
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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, 16 Jul 2013 22:59:52 -0000

This draft is on the 6man agenda for Berlin.  I expect the discussion will be taken up there.

In my opinion, the multicast scope should not be tied, thought the words in the description of the scope, to the address assignment architecture.

- Ralph

On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:41 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi:
> 
>>> "subnet" implies that this multicast scope must derive from the address
>>> assignment topology.  The first (and only) use case is derived from the
>>> /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of scope
>>> 0x03?
> 
>> I think so.
> 
> Same here.
> 
> Pascal
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email