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

Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com> Wed, 21 August 2013 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.cragie@gridmerge.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 0E57B11E8112 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 pzeVzzBIS4Wp for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E06411E8110 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [94.116.73.183] (helo=[10.38.247.167]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1VCBFI-0000p3-O0 for roll@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:26:56 +0100
Message-ID: <5214EA55.2030200@gridmerge.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:27:01 +0100
From: Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
Organization: Gridmerge Ltd.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: roll@ietf.org
References: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE7376@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <CE3A1504.22FF6%d.sturek@att.net> <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>
In-Reply-To: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618CE748B@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms000204050604080506070707"
X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, 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: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:27:08 -0000

Hi Esko,

I agree some of the description in earlier drafts seems to have gone 
away (02->03), resulting in that, as you say, it becomes down to 
configuration whether a MPL Forwarder would actually do this or not in 
both the cases you describe. How it is configured would probably depend 
on scope rules.

Robert

On 21/08/2013 16:12, Dijk, Esko wrote:
> Don,
>
> I agree with you on the role of the multicast scope. MPL is defined well enough for this aspect. However I was referring to a different situation than you had in mind, most likely.
>
> The situation I have in mind is a LLN mesh network where 'hosts' (IP hosts) can reside at any position in the network. For example, a mesh network where 50% of nodes are MPL Forwarders (together constituting a single MPL domain) and 50% of nodes are hosts that don't know anything about MPL. Suppose one of these hosts, host A, sends out an IP multicast packet and three nearby MPL Forwarder nodes receive this multicast. Then, MPL-04 does not describe whether these MPL forwarders, or which of these, are required to "inject" the multicast packet into the MPL domain. MPL-04 does say that an MPL Forwarder may "inject" such a packet, acting as an MPL Seed.
> Similarly there's also no specification how a host B that is 5 hops away from host A, could ever receive this multicast packet. (This won't happen automatically since host B does not listen to the ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS address - it doesn't know about MPL. There's no requirement that every MPL Forwarder "decapsulates" the received packets and resends them unencapsulated for the benefit of hosts.)
>
> I think Section 3 could just mention that additional mechanisms for the above are out of scope.
>
> regards,
> Esko
>
>
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>