Re: [Roll] WG Last Call draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-02

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 03 November 2012 00:54 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 1102B1F0C92 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.268, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtRwI5bpwGEj for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2F81F0C5F for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (ip-64-134-66-63.public.wayport.net [64.134.66.63]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F47781B7; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:46:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE84CA0CD; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "roll@ietf.org WG" <roll@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <21d5e8c9a5f4a517a8fa421497f37c8a@xs4all.nl>
References: <CCB50B52.1B637%d.sturek@att.net> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF0F6E519E@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <b4475c01a2da3a733b3fae9fccab42a7@xs4all.nl> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF0F6E9646@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5091B2A3.1090205@exegin.com> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF0F6ECE93@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <c04faf7dd80fa0cc01bc2c5123da0c7b@xs4all.nl> <404.1351779310@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <21d5e8c9a5f4a517a8fa421497f37c8a@xs4all.nl>
Comments: In-reply-to peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> message dated "Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:08:23 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:46:55 -0400
Message-ID: <19755.1351900015@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WG Last Call draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-02
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:54:22 -0000

see inline

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
    peter> It is related to the scope of the multicast, but not in the
    peter> administrative sense, but in an operational sense when
    peter> wireless forwarders receive MPL messages and they should be
    peter> able to filter only those messages that are targeted to the
    peter> subnet of which they are part.

Is this about configuring multicast (hardware) filters so that the wrong
nodes aren't woken up?
Is the case you speak up articulated by one of Robert's diagrams?

    peter> I explained the case earlier with an example.

Yes, I had asked a question about that too.  I didn't understand how
the two networks overlapped.  Do they share the same 15.4 key material?
Do they have the same beacons?

My feeling is that you are solving a problem which exists on paper, but
not in a real 15.4 network.  But, I could be completely wrong.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/