IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Thu, 11 July 2013 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 C27D211E81C5 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 bD02oXvy+AhS for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-x22b.google.com (mail-vb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3431111E81B9 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so1040941vbg.16 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zflH4qVvMv8vE1rJOv3Fl81FvfPPR14gtUppjO0GRoY=; b=imyT77uBJdp6nUkJk7BwbB80ykUh/QZIVmDnWKQ0krgz2odTM/EvxyuelZmv+B7SzX rBrkJOeNQpLWcaqtlgPxvh6/QSEGDfQPEU+BLirbsF0QoVKYUrWD/8Rte0r2xg7sphps 9ZNJuA5qBl55iXji2h23ykQv07WzEUqq+fgys=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=zflH4qVvMv8vE1rJOv3Fl81FvfPPR14gtUppjO0GRoY=; b=hXLuVYZBt6PctR+IotE/bh5THNb+4+x8uJvp2HoXyZoT+0JsWKyj+6Puf98PnsAumI Ix3qfc/RPqgijaRfnhTAc3VR7AhrMT/c+nO31bnNmT960dW8fDIk0NyE6P1FZyBDUnz7 MFj5LJloPp2a+AKT9AeMUnFqcM7yWAcur1ffnjNn4oRSUPiIZ4NZ30MSPkDbpwyF/1Hm ceC9FsEPaSEa2+SdmVBDLbkeGp6rO3cMhIYOsye4sXKF9FgUc7a/+kvZtXe3bBZYGqBu fEA1CSgW+PPYOlzGcQFVx5gQzxOTSoSSgU+jOTjj1nl0XQYGLd3iarepZ77740zlkMg7 gXfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.34.69 with SMTP id x5mr23076916vei.11.1373581780469; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.55.70 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca>
References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC-f1KzWnNws97Zu=vbvrGeg-s6OWWikWHAi4t_3iN6TLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoPtrPQsqSCZnbLOuL2UYCtRCNutzx/iMuqNkqClBd/00UhKQZlRs6+LQ6admrH3aYy/TH
Cc: rdroms@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:29:41 -0000

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

Regards
Ulrich

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email