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

For me RFC 1136 was quite clarifying.

It states that the Internet subnet term is ambiguous
- It refers to one-hop IP connectivity
- it refers to address hierarchy

RFC 1136 defines the adminsitrative domain and the routing domain

IMO, routing domain is nicely defined in RFC 1136.

an adminsitrative domain can contain one or more routing domains.

I translate a mesh subnet running RPL as a routing domain
while an adminstrative domain can contain several interconnected RPL 
domains

For the latter I understood we want to use scope-3 to run for example 
service discovery.
and in our case multicast to multiple devices where the network topology 
is motivated by history, and organizational and physical constraints.

Any mistakes in the above?

Peter

Ralph Droms (rdroms) schreef op 2013-07-25 11:13:
> Michael...
> 
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:37 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson
> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:
> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term.
> 
> When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to 
> the set
> of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used?
> 
> Hm, I thought I responded but apparently not...
> 
> This change to scope 0x03 is not just for MPL, so we don't know how
> else it might be used in the future.
> 
> I understand, but perhaps it would be better, if, when another use case 
> comes
> along, they write a document explaining why scope-3 is correct and
> non-conflicting with the trickle mcast use case.
> 
> I don't agree; in my opinion, it's better to release scope 0x03 from
> "reserved" state and give guidelines for its use.
> 
> Let's see how 6man WG consensus develops...
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> 
> Specific examples:
> 1) two adjacent RPL domains, which do not share a prefix but are to be
> considered as one realm for mDNS
> 
> I accept that this is a plausible scenario, but I believe that it
> presupposes a technical answer from the not-yet occured sdnsext BOF.
> sDNSext could well mandate a proxy solution where actual multicast 
> packets do
> not cross that boundary.
> 
> 2) one RPL domain and one other non-RPL subnet that are to be 
> considered as one realm for mDNS
> 
> Do you mean, in fact, one LLN and another non-LLN technology, which 
> have MPL
> capable routers connecting them?
> 
> I write it this way, because I think that there is a belief that RPL 
> can only
> be used in LLNs, while the RPL architecture is very specifically for 
> multiple
> link types, and I find it hard to imagine an MPL capable router which 
> does
> not also speak RPL.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll