Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Wed, 24 July 2013 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
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 854ED11E8105 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 zvHB1DujV3Lb for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm18-vm8.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm18-vm8.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4418311E8111 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.196.81.166] by nm18.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 16:49:46 -0000
Received: from [98.139.221.48] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 16:49:46 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp101.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 16:49:46 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374684586; bh=837pIVGUCeynIYw+sY4b2aCQycSdaBoQ8w2cFyNwouM=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=rAHiXb5Xji407V1Ji5WPBRy41cPtEFZcrROQarXKLM2n3S0q73JOqdlS7CmObGDQp4TPEfqOLVuxIY2djqIi0SufI5TTbpg0yGF48tgcwvM+TMss9nEVhp1+27weJvDvMXemGUw1dc2edaQOo34rCkaNEvkB/tv6ubIFrVZlB8o=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 355961.70657.bm@smtp101.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: wSnMoykVM1k7AZvCoWEE4DiGFXHhowTpUfgZheECLUHnuu1 b3jXrCeKtWNTlBDwBuAuDUoopxHVgJfW8THb_PyWUfZpE2iasdZmvAiisuRd JXoMaXfuThUrqSL3_HWBQcpE3dA4OXQoekm3ODVASL7I881bmjvCy3dcsVgq DZ9gxrUDjioHNZ_yk.pvIYR_G2j8tSaew79FmDKlUlzN54ZYzSJ0LQQfYL5k x280UsM18CjP91YeqXbZNZlg4mepr9A2rCi1E5clz.CpJ0ePOGGEh2qZ35r_ mBtZ0CLcY5q5hnNhi0HcD.QUS_pJfcIUmbCvkX1XPItFy44OI2eLzozfDIOp hPlJewUXquKCDCzTfzdoBK0enRL2D1C3PkzjbMedmwjQDk1.Kcc_EsEpWOCm x9Z5P9wKUOU7s.NpjRw8sSLKuGU37fm.MKpqtgOyUu65S7iyXGrJ9pkcB5l8 QX0kpugylhnA.LRTa6B5tG0STlmSdGD4FUYe_TleWawrNMGEAZOJn0KiAFjw mx1X_psd3vmm2eCyc_A--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-Rocket-Received: from [10.1.1.129] (d.sturek@66.27.60.174 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2013 09:49:46 -0700 PDT
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:42 -0700
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CE154C74.22501%d.sturek@att.net>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
In-Reply-To: <CAK=bVC9jA=p3dMVRLXCnrCN6b2-rmhYK_GKJk-rKVsEX3napRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:49:53 -0000

Hi Ulrich,

I did review the you cited in your earlier e-mail (RFC 5889).   It seems
that RFC suggests that link local addresses not be generated for
interfaces with undetermined link characteristics (which certainly apply
to route over protocols like ROLL RPL and the MANET protocols).

However, in looking 6LoWPAN ND (RFC 6775), isn't assignment of link local
addresses to such a topology exactly what is going on?  If you add ROLL
RPL (RFC 655) to this deployment scenario and specifcally with the
illustrative examples in Annex A, it seems clear that a multi-hop subnet
is exactly what is described.

Next, if someone were to want to support a protocol like mDNS (RFC 6792)
which uses link locals, how could that be supported using RFC 5889?

I think these are important topics as we seemed to have to go to extremes
in our work (ZigBee IP) to deal with ULAs when it would have been great if
link locals were available in the context of a route over protocol like
ROLL RPL.

Don




On 7/24/13 8:32 AM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:

>I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in
>long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad
>idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all
>these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide
>flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a
>single router.
>
>Regards
>Ulrich
>
>On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson
><mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term.
>>
>> When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to
>>the set
>> of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used?
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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