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

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Wed, 31 October 2012 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
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 C644621F8736 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
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 lEe1HKKmTJdX for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-vbr6.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr6.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAC021F86C7 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube5.xs4all.net [194.109.20.203]) by smtp-vbr6.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9V8b4AR000600; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:37:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl)
Received: from a82-95-140-48.adsl.xs4all.nl ([82.95.140.48]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:37:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:37:04 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: <consultancy@vanderstok.org>
In-Reply-To: <CCB55B3A.1B690%d.sturek@att.net>
References: <CCB55B3A.1B690%d.sturek@att.net>
Message-ID: <de6db913475aff2d4c7a3bcb426262da@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (rRKb+KgROlucMoRaskapdB7JZvpkntpn)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
Cc: Jonathan Hui <jonhui@gmail.com>, roll@ietf.org
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
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.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: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:38:10 -0000

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" <jonhui@gmail.com> 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 <d.sturek@att.net> 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" <stokcons@xs4all.nl> 
>>> 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" <stokcons@xs4all.nl> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>