Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

[Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>]

Yes, but your scenario is surely one where it cannot be automatically 
configured and therefore scope 4 is surely more applicable?

Robert

On 15/10/2013 17:08, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Ralph Droms (rdroms) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > What is your definition for "subnet" that is compatible with the
>      > definition from draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes:
>
>      >   automatically configured, i.e., automatically derived from physical
>      > connectivity or other, non-multicast-related configuration.
>
>      > I chose PAN ID as a way of identifying a "subnet" within a distribution
>      > of MPL forwarders that might be within radio range of each other but
>      > should be in separate MPL domains.  For example, suppose I have MPL
>      > forwarders in my flat and you have MPL forwarders in your flat.  How do
>      > my forwarders know they belong to the MPL domain in my flat while your
>      > forwarders know they belong to the MPL domain in your flat.  PAN ID
>      > would be one way to make that differentation.
>
> PANID is too restrictive in my opinion.
>
> I may well have a radio networks on the first floor of my (penthouse) flat,
> and another radio network on the second floor of my flat, connected by any
> number of wired (ethernet) or higher-powered wireless (wifi) layer-2
> technologies.  There are good radio reasons to use different PANIDs,
> because the isolation might be inconsistent.  The devices which connect my
> two floors know they are supposed to do that at the RPL level, and so
> subnet is the right thing.
>
> This is where we need to be prescriptive.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll