Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re: [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local)

["Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 25, 2013, at 4:38 PM 10/25/13, Dave Thaler <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 1:21 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes updates RFC 4007 (Was Re:
>> [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 -
>> subnet-local)
>> 
>> I think I read consensus from the WG to make the following changes to draft-
>> ietf-6man-multicast-scopes, and list the document as "Updates RFC 4007":
>> 
>> *** Add as a new last paragraph in section 2:
>> 
>>   The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291:
>> 
>>   OLD:
>> 
>>         Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
>>         administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
>>         from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
>>         configuration.
>> 
>>   NEW:
>> 
>>         Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries
>>         are automatically derived from physical connectivity or
>>         other, non-multicast related configuration.  Global scope has
>>         no boundary.  The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes
>>         are administratively configured.
> 
> I disagree with the last sentence above.  Specifically
> "non-reserved" should be removed.  That is, we should not start
> precluding admin configuration of reserved scopes, given we didn't
> before.  They just didn't have defined names or uses, but they could
> have been used within private environments.

Good catch.  So the last sentence should read:

  The boundaries of all other scopes are administratively configured.

?

- Ralph


> 
> -Dave
> 
>> 
>> *** Add section 3 (and renumber current section 3-5):
>> 
>> 3.  Updates to RFC 4007, section 5
>> 
>>   Section 5 of RFC 4007 and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree about the
>>   way in which multicast scope 3 is configured.  To resolve that disagreement,
>>   change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of RFC 4007 as follows:
>> 
>> OLD:
>> 
>>   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
>>      link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
>>      administrators.
>> 
>> NEW:
>> 
>>   o  The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
>>      addressing architecture [RFC4291].
>> 
>> I haven't seen any discussion of changing Realm-Local to Multilink-Local
>> beyond Kerry's initial suggestion and Robert's support of the change.
>> 
>> - Ralph
>> 
>> On Oct 17, 2013, at 12:10 PM 10/17/13, Ralph Droms
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Kerry correctly points out that RFC 4007 and RFC 4291 are in conflict
>> regarding the way in which multicast scope 3 is defined:
>>> 
>>> RFC 4007, section 5:
>>> 
>>>  o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
>>>     link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
>>>     administrators.
>>> 
>>> RFC 4291, section 2.7:
>>> 
>>>        Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
>>>        administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
>>>        from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
>>>        configuration.
>>> 
>>> Noting this conflict, I propose adding a bit of text to draft-ietf-6man-
>> multicast-scopes to update RFC 4007 for consistency with RFC 4291:
>>> 
>>> Add section 3 (and renumber current section 3-5):
>>> 
>>> 3.  Updates to RFC 4007, section 5
>>> 
>>>  Section 5 of RFC 4007 and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree about the
>>>  way in which multicast scope 3 is configured.  To resolve that
>> disagreement,
>>>  change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of RFC 4007 as follows:
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> 
>>>  o  The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
>>>     link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
>>>     administrators.
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> 
>>>  o  Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
>>>     administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
>>>     from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
>>>     configuration.
>>> 
>>> Looking for consensus in the 6man WG before I make this change...
>>> 
>>> - Ralph
>>> 
>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:04 AM 10/16/13, Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>> I think Ralph's approach is the correct one.  His
>>>> draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes belongs in 6man as it re-defines a
>>>> reserved code point in the IPv6 addressing architecture.  It
>>>> nominally updates RFC 4291 but should probably also update RFC 4007 as
>> these RFCs are in conflict regarding the automatic definition of scope 0x03.
>>> [...]
>>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------