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

Jonathan,

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:51 PM, 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"?

Yes, that is what I am saying. That said, I understand Michael's
concern about the word "network" (but have no better proposal so far).

Best regards
Ulrich

> On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg <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> 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>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson
>> >>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> 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
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>