Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Wed, 15 October 2014 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4191A885F for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jhkLhjqjww4a for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE07D1A889F for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=12198; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413388845; x=1414598445; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=JFA0VcjM8C+O2AZfCGf/z4qTa8PgLgrWVLd7YY9sY+M=; b=kvT9Pb1KnqkGziKpEoFeio0NkLy97YCmvKb/h803DAnrMgHHcpGXiesr lEEfIGA0ta4oIIdtgEAZd1B9mqB3PdmwHEru3jJXnDUAKB0c5UtzUW5aB eqWUY1Zaxp/OR8XG5+1i2PXYSQ0VW/yiUn22EtJVRNN14RKo5OzkeOGnV 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,725,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="363582030"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2014 16:00:44 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9FG0hME010567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:00:44 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:00:43 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN
Thread-Index: AQHP5RuvdYkdkHPd5kSqasUTvxD8SJwxVZ7NgAABfnA=
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:00:42 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842E1C49Axmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:00:47 -0000

Or form a new group ☺

What about Routing Over Complete Kaos?

More seriously, it’s probably a good idea to goto through the BoF sequence again to analyze what’s left to be done.
I can certainly see an analog of what the 6lo is to 6LoWPAN, but for ROLL.



From: Roll [] On Behalf Of Kerry Lynn
Sent: mercredi 15 octobre 2014 17:52
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
Cc: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
Subject: Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN

Pascal, Carsten, et al.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Carsten Bormann <<>> wrote:
Right, MLD is a host-router protocol.
Routers among them speak a routing protocol, so they wouldn’t exchange MLD.
(A RPL “leaf” is a router.)

> Finally I'm looking at BIER see how their ideas could apply to LLNs…

We (TZI) have done (specified, implemented, analyzed) an efficient BIER-like multicast forwarding protocol for non-storing mode a while ago.

I admit to some confusion here.  Is (topology-free) MPL no longer the default
multicast forwarding protocol for LLN?

Need to write that up in an I-D and submit it somewhere.
BIER or ROLL or both?
I thought the goal was to shut down (or is it re-charter) ROLL?  If we're considering
new approaches to multicast forwarding, that may be reason enough to re-charter


Grüße, Carsten

Roll mailing list<>