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

["Dijk, Esko" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

these are very useful diagrams.  I just wanted to point out for page 6, "Site local multicast originating externally", that there is probably also configuration required (in the BR) of what multicast traffic is allowed by the BR onto the LLN.  I assume that not all multicast traffic from the high-speed backbone network should be forwarded onto the LLN into the MPL domain as that could lead to congestion?

As  a side note, this configuration would not be needed if we would have an equivalent of the MLD protocol , to let LLN nodes announce their interest in specific multicast groups.  One specific solution (in case the BR is also an RPL DODAG root) is for nodes to use standard RPL DAOs containing multicast addresses of interest, to advertize the multicast groups of interest to the BR which can then automatically set up the 'filtering rules'. But this is probably beyond the current MPL spec ;-)

regards,
Esko

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Robert Cragie
Sent: Thursday 1 November 2012 9:31
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Roll] WG Last Call draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-02

Hi Dario,

Some comments inline. I have also attached some diagrams which hopefully help to illustrate some of the thought processes we went through when implementing and testing between the ZigBee IP vendors (comments welcome). Apologies in advance for the PDF format but ASCII art would have been difficult :-)

Robert

On 31/10/2012 11:22 PM, Dario Tedeschi wrote:
Yes, I'd like to try clarify why link-local scope was suggested for the *outer* header. The reasons were:

  1.  Link-local scope is the only scope where the boundaries are well defined (i.e. on the link). Higher scopes are not well-defined and can cover wide domains depending on network configuration and administration.
<RCC>I agree and made essentially the same comment re. higher scopes.</RCC>


  1.  With a higher scope, there is a chance that non-MPL aware routers may simply forward encapsulated multicast datagrams (MPL HbH option and all). We wouldn't want MPL datagrams to leak outside of an MPL domain.
<RCC>Which is why I think the encapsulation rules do need to be pretty specific. If link-local encapsulation is always used then providing the MPL forwarder rules are clear, the MPL domain is then entirely bounded by the MPL forwarders and there is no question regarding address scope and administration thereof. This cleanly covers Peter's case as well where he wants to forward into another PAN - it would be processed internally as an original non-MPL packet and then be "launched" into the other PAN using LL encapsulation for that PAN. Using other scopes for the outer header would still work but then there is the issue of administering the scope. However, this would need to be done in the case where no encapsulation is done anyway.</RCC>


  1.  A higher scope complicates the forwarding logic that needs to be implemented in an MPL router. The complication comes when a router receives an MPL datagram and needs to figure out whether to decapsulate or not. Granted, the use of an MPL group would mitigate this problem to a degree, but link-local scope would make the decision to decapsulate very obvious and simple.
<RCC>I think it would have to be effectively decapsulated at every router anyway irrespective of the scope of the outer header to see if it needs to be processed - it is the inner header which counts there and the comments about multicast groups come into play in that discussion. But I agree using link-local makes that decision easy and somewhat clearer</RCC>


  1.  In conjunction with 3. Link-local scope also makes it easier for an MPL router to determine if the inner multicast address is one that a higher layer (or an app) may be interested in.
<RCC>Agree that the rules are clearer for link-local</RCC>


  1.
Hopefully I haven't made things more confusing.

<RCC>Perish the thought ;-)</RCC>


- Dario

On 31/10/2012 7:53 AM, Jonathan Hui (johui) wrote:

Hi Peter,



The current draft does not place any restrictions on the MPL multicast scope.



If the LLN border router is an MPL forwarder, it can forward MPL multicast packets between different MPL multicast scope zones.  To be explicit, if the original multicast packet's destination address has link-local scope, the MPL forwarder should not forward the packet again.  If the original multicast packet's destination has a scope larger than the MPL multicast scope, then the MPL forwarder needs to forward the packet to other MPL multicast scope zones (which may or may not involve different interfaces).



Does that address your question?



--

Jonathan Hui



On Oct 31, 2012, at 3:54 AM, peter van der Stok <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:



Hi Jonathan,



To be absolutely sure: the MPL multicast scope can be link-local, ULA or site-local? meaning the LLN border router can be a MPL forwarder?

In the latter case the LLN border router can forward link-local multicast from one interface to another?



Greetings,



peter



Jonathan Hui (johui) schreef op 2012-10-30 18:27:

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.



As mentioned in my other email, IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is

required if you want to use the IPv6 Destination Address to identify

MPL forwarding scope zones.



Of course, this brings up Dario's practical point of how to configure

the MPL multicast scope if we allow that to dynamically change.  He

proposes a simplifying suggestion of requiring IPv6-in-IPv6

encapsulation for all non-link-local multicasts.  In other words,

setting the MPL multicast scope to link-local.



Thoughts?



--

Jonathan Hui



On Oct 30, 2012, at 4:46 AM, Don Sturek <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> 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

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll



_______________________________________________

Roll mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

_______________________________________________

Roll mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll





_______________________________________________

Roll mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.