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

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi Don, Jontahan,

The constraints seem to be clear. Looking forward to the new text with 
more information about zones as suggested in the answer to Ulrich

peter

Don Sturek schreef op 2012-10-30 18:31:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> What you wrote below sounds correct.
>
> For applications like Peter's that are sensitive to packet length and 
> who
> may want to have application behavior similar to sending multicast
> requests from outside the multi-link subnet, they could utilize an
> application on the border router to ensure that IP in IP tunneling is 
> not
> used (the application can support unicast commands to it targeting a
> collection of lamps or devices then the application can generate the 
> MPL
> multicast locally to the multi-link subnet devices)
>
> Don
>
>
> On 10/30/12 10:15 AM, "Jonathan Hui" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, a goal of the current draft is to support both cases (use of
>>IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation or not).
>>
>>The intent is as follows:
>>
>>1) If the source of the multicast packet is within the MPL forwarding
>>domain and the destination has a scope equal to or smaller than the 
>> MPL
>>multicast scope, then no IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required.
>>
>>2) If the source of the multicast packet is outside the MPL 
>> forwarding
>>domain or the destination has scope greater than the MPL multicast 
>> scope,
>>then IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required.  When using IPv6-in-IPv6
>>encapsulation, then the all MPL forwarders multicast address with 
>> scope =
>>MPL multicast scope is used as the destination address in the outer
>>header.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>--
>>Jonathan Hui
>>
>>On Oct 30, 2012, at 4:46 AM, Don Sturek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> I still need to read the latest draft so take what I say here with 
>>> that
>>>in
>>> mind......
>>>
>>> I was hoping that we could support not using IP in IP tunneling if 
>>> the
>>> scope of the multicast transmission was only within the multi-link
>>>subnet
>>> managed by the border router.   I was hoping that only transmission
>>> emanating from outside the multi-link subnet, received at the 
>>> border
>>> router, with scope that includes the devices in the multi-link 
>>> subnet
>>> would require IP in IP tunneling (and vice versa in terms of 
>>> multicasts
>>> generated in the multi-link subnet with scope outside).  I haven't 
>>> yet
>>> read the draft carefully to know if this is possible.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/30/12 1:34 AM, "peter van der Stok" <[e-mail]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Don,
>>>>
>>>> and more specifically under which conditions. That gives the
>>>> possibility to choose the conditions such that the encapsulation 
>>>> is not
>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>> Don Sturek schreef op 2012-10-29 16:56:
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think your suggested changes to the Trickle Multicast draft 
>>>>> point
>>>>> out
>>>>> why IP in IP tunneling is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/29/12 3:44 AM, "peter van der Stok" <[e-mail]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear WG,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached my suggestions for text modifications including some 
>>>>>> nits. I
>>>>>> used the facilities of word to edit and comment text with 
>>>>>> traces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When writing text about MC scope and MC domain, I was puzzled by 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> all MPL forwarders multicast address which removes the 
>>>>>> possibility to
>>>>>> address a given multicast group. We expect multiple (possibly
>>>>>> disjunct)
>>>>>> MC groups in our wireless networks.
>>>>>> Also I failed to understand why encapsulation was necessary once 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> message was received by the seed.
>>>>>> To make it possible to configure the interface with one MC scope 
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> added the possibility to use Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast
>>>>>> Addresses (RFC 3306).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably, I overlooked many aspects which make the suggestions
>>>>>> impractical, but I hope that the intention is clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter van der Stok
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Richardson schreef op 2012-10-25 23:30:
>>>>>>> I suggest that you propose specific text to the list to modify 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Roll mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>