Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications?

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> Mon, 29 July 2013 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <kerlyn2001@gmail.com>
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 6F82021F9F52 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Z6pM6Byy2nWx for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CA421F9F3D for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j6so3550179oag.0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=hzIsffsXvMVrSiytnz/7Gh0mxVtQLZnvozXkm2EOirc=; b=wzyw5fLS/Ja/2mMgdUH0Lj2vggFghEzlIqFS9KiDGyBegO9CnIbanYN0Zqwsr2Ky23 xJJz248jKihCgciXpyHc8bmv5/wW92GmSRfcqFwpHEE97jDkhbTvYHUpecfiYA/e6bNN dtlkr6bcfUpxUJZqrl/DQTJLCMI1fBk2hjsLTi7qUsdgf4Wgp/xKLFpNf14K5tg3hPsV e+Xxzx17YOSXTjGwoplCLNTfAAf0nSGp0UBxI+f4FJ3OQdDKxFDWIQFv9cXOEKAeKQqw xAfj9GZbEd18NHCDXzpdTCZe00oNNkgtgnjJdnwsPkYFuYAy1lC8otAhxhudhNmSXpv2 O0Eg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.77.70 with SMTP id q6mr58153510oew.98.1375104500221; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com
Received: by 10.60.94.239 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <12710.1375085495@sandelman.ca>
References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.a3c6d181235e95142a4efbdf979fe23b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <12710.1375085495@sandelman.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:28:20 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FpnbcayWsAZlN3W8DB-J-x0mc_s
Message-ID: <CABOxzu0YKmrAQ4CvNAksnXp6dwnVyRvUM_9unPLuQaC017x79A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b33d3e043cb9504e2a67729"
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications?
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:28:21 -0000

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>wrote:

> roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
>     > Whether or not MPL is contained at the LBR is a deployment decision.
>     > Personally, I think it should be, and other multicast forwarding
> should be
>     > used in non-lossy networks.
>
> ...
>
>     > These issues should be addressed in the Applicability statement.
>
> is there any disagreement here?
>
> The Trickle Algorithm is derived from "epidemic update" type systems
developed at
PARC in the early 90s.  So we already know that it can be deployed with
utility in
scenarios other than LLNs.

My original comment was not to suggest that we should delay the draft while
we
think up new uses for MPL.  Rather, by considering *any* other application
it may
help us decide whether the current proposal is sufficiently specified.

One alternative use of MPL is to enable multicast updates in small
mutli-subnet
topologies like homenet.  MPL would probably be less complex than deploying
PIM-xM on small routers and, unlike IGMP/MLD Proxying [RFC 4605], it would
not require hand-configured trees.  I have a dnssdext proposal in mind that
could
use MPL to advantage over hetergeneous links.

It seems unwise to me to artificially limit the applicability of a new
standards track
protocol considering the time and effort it takes to get an RFC approved.
I believe
that by making a single change to the MPL proposal it may be applied in a
more
general fashion without detracting from its anticipated use in LLNs.  This
change
is to make proactive forwarding an interface (rather than global) setting
and to
specify its use more precisely.

Respectfully, Kerry Lynn



> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>