IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 15 October 2013 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 2C60421E81F9 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, 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 DjsIq5tO6ifO for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94C921E81E3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F05B2017F; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id B6FC963B88; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:08:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A480C63AEF; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:08:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301BE0790@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.0e60a05a9e9a33903054243f518f8668@trac.tools.ietf.org> <13450.1381846273@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA301BE0790@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:08:05 -0400
Message-ID: <5697.1381853285@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: "mariainesrobles@gmail.com" <mariainesrobles@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-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, 15 Oct 2013 16:08:48 -0000

Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:
    > What is your definition for "subnet" that is compatible with the
    > definition from draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes:

    >   automatically configured, i.e., automatically derived from physical
    > connectivity or other, non-multicast-related configuration.

    > I chose PAN ID as a way of identifying a "subnet" within a distribution
    > of MPL forwarders that might be within radio range of each other but
    > should be in separate MPL domains.  For example, suppose I have MPL
    > forwarders in my flat and you have MPL forwarders in your flat.  How do
    > my forwarders know they belong to the MPL domain in my flat while your
    > forwarders know they belong to the MPL domain in your flat.  PAN ID
    > would be one way to make that differentation.

PANID is too restrictive in my opinion.

I may well have a radio networks on the first floor of my (penthouse) flat,
and another radio network on the second floor of my flat, connected by any
number of wired (ethernet) or higher-powered wireless (wifi) layer-2
technologies.  There are good radio reasons to use different PANIDs,
because the isolation might be inconsistent.  The devices which connect my
two floors know they are supposed to do that at the RPL level, and so
subnet is the right thing.

This is where we need to be prescriptive.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email