Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > My original comment was not to suggest that we should delay the draft while we
    > think up new uses for MPL.  Rather, by considering *any* other application it
    > may
    > help us decide whether the current proposal is sufficiently specified.

    > One alternative use of MPL is to enable multicast updates in small mutli-subnet
    > topologies like homenet.  MPL would probably be less complex than deploying
    > PIM-xM on small routers and, unlike IGMP/MLD Proxying [RFC 4605], it would
    > not require hand-configured trees.  I have a dnssdext proposal in mind that
    > could
    > use MPL to advantage over hetergeneous links.

So, if sdnsext wants to use MPL, then it needs an applicability statement to
make it clear where the boundaries of the scope-3 is.

For homenet deployments of sdnsext, I think that homenet already has a need
to determine site boundary.
For eduprise deployments, it might be enough to say that automatic detection
is impossible, and so routers should default to marking interfaces as not
being scope-3, but should include a mechanism to include the interface into
that scope (and which scope-3 domain if the router has more than two
interfaces).

Having said this, do you think we are done with ticket #128?

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works