IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Discussion/Comments For draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Mon, 28 January 2013 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@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 8C23321F8717 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:48:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 lECPV2YQrXMP for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB62D21F86FF for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id fb11so1687849pad.24 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:48:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4xvClj1jRg4l/X+/OWGoG8Hmf7QQZ/gpLE6MDgSES9Y=; b=LqQGWiym78ExUBesOjLJV9bgOEJqWtcu67qdvaTed8WXxRMCAP5xv2acAb3VkV9l+w kx1QNI8UCXzzfGRMh2galShDoHjY8T24Ku2lIvSWbGPIsp314nFZv+YMK7CK2QrSnyG6 TdrvLkZ7zyDPnH3zU3TGaEYCbJ1RzcQ1K4DoaFR2njP3U4Ti5yzTDX4t0fY26Gnye8xV wFLnUthpSP3DS4rVSEb+HX8MSTayb0SrcfGnjcDX6xLHhZWfgcLcm0JYr9KYZdq5MfH8 oq7hLmeU2JXNkd+5uI82H8JvXCkDEs4kn4KX6/7tpTX2iv4aKYyzkqmddPnoXMofrWZZ U7TQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.232.195 with SMTP id tq3mr39867861pbc.70.1359398905545; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.218.134 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:48:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF186E4839@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <CADnDZ88Vq5h+dzJNQfCStc4w9G+Bqqk7A+uQo0bDPD=fhvE=TA@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_JLNMgPmd1ztChd63Fwjiw++JZ4fdPBv_wJNWcFBubmQ@mail.gmail.com> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF186E4114@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CADnDZ89fjEqfWriDr9MerhgUZzqgccMDCEOctGGSwFEw2ktOCg@mail.gmail.com> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF186E448A@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CADnDZ8_+27oxZg7Xu5k8t5B5QFQFRKs1EY5Vf7KSQe1hcckzug@mail.gmail.com> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF186E45D2@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CADnDZ88u3ed3hEe_14mnpDH_O9JXbUNjyBRZ1ENpuJf5sBE1Kg@mail.gmail.com> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF186E4782@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CADnDZ8896uFgWnDL4Vf7jvVhTPS30zxD1BsRbuLkhTHymyUdNw@mail.gmail.com> <B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF186E4839@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:48:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89v-53fZ7Z7=MDDcFe_FOHM7xhDZFtLFUs1TmTSzBOQ-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" <johui@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "richard.kelsey@silabs.com Kelsey" <richard.kelsey@silabs.com>, roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Discussion/Comments For draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-03
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: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:48:26 -0000

On 1/28/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <johui@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Correct.  An MPL Forwarder forwards a message to its next hop using
> link-layer multicast (which many LLN technologies map to link-layer
> broadcast).
>

I understand from reply and previous one, as MPLhas no knowledge of
neighbors, so that MPL is not multicasting by itself within the
domain, it is broadcasting, but because using Trickel not always all
nodes in the domain receive the message, therefore, MPL is
multicasting.

Overall, now I think I got to read the draft again, to prepare my
review, thanks alot for your help,

AB

> --
> Jonathan Hui
>
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok so my understanding before was correct. Therefore, inside the MPL
>> domain there is no need for IP multicast, just MPL multicast using its
>> forwarders, is this correct?
>>
>> AB
>>
>> On 1/28/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <johui@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is not required if the IPv6 Destination
>>> Address
>>> is the MPL Domain Address.
>>>
>>> But whether or not encapsulation is used, Section 10.1 specifies:
>>>
>>>     The IPv6 Destination Address MUST be set to the MPL Domain Address
>>>      corresponding to the MPL Domain.
>>>
>>> And as Section 2 specifies, the MPL Domain Address is a multicast
>>> address.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Hui
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
>>> <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/28/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) <johui@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> MPL forwards IPv6 multicast messages using IPv6 multicast messages
>>>>> (hence
>>>>> the IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I understand from your reply that MPL uses always IPv6 multicast
>>>> encapsulation for its data. I thought before it was only outside the
>>>> MPL domains, that it will use IP-in-IP
>>>>
>>>> AB
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email