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

On 7/12/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <johui@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> The issue at hand is defining a new multicast scope.  Any multicast scope
> greater than link-local covers multiple links by definition.
>
> Or are you simply saying that you disagree with Michael's suggestion and
> would prefer a name other than "subnet"?

I prefer using *sub-cluster* or *net-cluster* for MPL purposes.

AB

>
> --
> Jonathan Hui
>
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg
> <ulrich@herberg.name<mailto:ulrich@herberg.name>> wrote:
>
> Hi Don,
>
> The IETF has already documented a solution in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889
> (using /128 prefixes)
>
> I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago:
> http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf
>
> Regards
> Ulrich
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
> I think the multi-link subnet is an unfortunate side effect of route over
> mesh protocols.
>
> I would be interested in hearing of any solution around this since we (the
> folks implementing ZigBee IP) seemed to have to go through a lot of
> trouble over multi-link subnets.....
>
> Don
>
>
> On 7/11/13 5:40 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
>>That's what I feared... I think it's an unfortunate decision.
>>
>>Btw, should that mean that RFC4903 should be obsoleted?
>>
>>Ulrich
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>> <rdroms@cisco.com<javascript:;>>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg"
>>> <ulrich@herberg.name<javascript:;>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson
>>>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca<javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines
>>>>>>scope
>>>>>> 0x03 as:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3  Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defined
>>>>>> automatically from the network topology
>>>>>
>>>>>> To be confirmed: will this definition suffice for MPL?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is sufficient, because we understand what it means.
>>>>> I am concerned about the word "Network"... which could mean anything
>>>>>to anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because the intent
>>>>>is that
>>>>> it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is using.  I
>>>>>think that
>>>>> is the term that is used in RFC4291.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that having a network-wide, multi-link subnet is a bad idea:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4903
>>>
>>> That decision has already been made and is carried through many
>>>protocols..
>>>
>>> - Ralph
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ulrich
>>_______________________________________________
>>Roll mailing list
>>Roll@ietf.org<javascript:;>
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org<javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>