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

Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Thu, 25 July 2013 13:07 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 7E0D821F9AE6 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 06:07:22 -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 x4PWSR5OgtRl for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 06:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm19-vm6.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm19-vm6.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5877C21F9ADA for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 06:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.39.60.173] by nm19.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 13:07:02 -0000
Received: from [98.138.104.100] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 13:07:02 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp120.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 13:07:02 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374757622; bh=74OYuWmoaHRP0ZtAqIW8VYrKnXKlqZXwOyGRiwu1PHQ=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=X0rk7VKDTSRhUuzqLlKScdbjqnXlNHWuVcyvZJouwcxh9Kwob19+ffe/s8AsB598RzUUaQbyWE8LtF1c4b5UkJVjY7Bp6wycM2j50aDobpaW/uobhu7fWYONJHS7SxighPwYAUm1zEcSEgNsrPKYw0erD/NdKMjGSAnf+aE3fOI=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 393549.70600.bm@smtp120.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: FGHLtjYVM1nr2ylVCWSA2v9Tmi4tEdZv7l0aC_V433KNwWJ wHbcEt3AWK8csq81yVpASZAJqlY4aGT.jXySZMB6knoG6nh9LNNVhsa6l0Ab L8PlSKFaE_Ws5IcOPOsWXWsVoJIU7Jwdxch5A5.joahzmAKWkgWf8BrUlDY6 9I8nn7gJmpE2mr7xx7UgNO8FbU3zf0xu9FRX.HNHuytJY_LFs32etdKeJFMJ ieUDcXuLYouhIb_xlnEVHUdhwtTG8Rn.mR.0rR32XbuxSsRceaSMTcMAx7Nw QQQYtu8fRtU5ikSt80SsxMKJTUgvCmplk9qhNWEHkxHrty9psgh5_j7GR8gy TstHigynG0I4Y1676CYpTkA0S.PBXUEjcgWNLiznEQwSIjhdQcz6x64O3J.l c7GXYLOBFvA3mJ1BwrP5w4NB3zcyuHUHiTg4G7SN33xHiwWNIsws7E7_wyrt euxklC.CkGPDuMozXPoAJu63BQKDBWLYmUX5.gCFekLkIdLBbyKfsoAHsmJo v8xSEkdskEj.gn8XwLyk-
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@67.124.200.231 with login) by smtp120.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2013 13:07:02 +0000 UTC
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 06:06:59 -0700
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CE167073.22585%d.sturek@att.net>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
In-Reply-To: <202e77ad4286b74c606d04de997bd996@xs4all.nl>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:07:22 -0000

Hi Peter,

What you wrote seems exactly correct.

The one area that I think needs some work (maybe 6MAN?) is the forwarding
rules when encountering scope-3 packets.  For example, if I am a border
router with 5 interfaces each with a different prefix, which of those
interfaces do I forward the packet to and which do I not (eg, which
interfaces face inward in my topology and which face outward).   If there
is already an RFC on this topic a reference would be greatly appreciated.

Don


On 7/25/13 5:53 AM, "peter van der Stok" <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>For me RFC 1136 was quite clarifying.
>
>It states that the Internet subnet term is ambiguous
>- It refers to one-hop IP connectivity
>- it refers to address hierarchy
>
>RFC 1136 defines the adminsitrative domain and the routing domain
>
>IMO, routing domain is nicely defined in RFC 1136.
>
>an adminsitrative domain can contain one or more routing domains.
>
>I translate a mesh subnet running RPL as a routing domain
>while an adminstrative domain can contain several interconnected RPL
>domains
>
>For the latter I understood we want to use scope-3 to run for example
>service discovery.
>and in our case multicast to multiple devices where the network topology
>is motivated by history, and organizational and physical constraints.
>
>Any mistakes in the above?
>
>Peter
>
>
>Ralph Droms (rdroms) schreef op 2013-07-25 11:13:
>> Michael...
>> 
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:37 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson
>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdroms@cisco.com> 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?
>> 
>> Hm, I thought I responded but apparently not...
>> 
>> This change to scope 0x03 is not just for MPL, so we don't know how
>> else it might be used in the future.
>> 
>> I understand, but perhaps it would be better, if, when another use case
>> comes
>> along, they write a document explaining why scope-3 is correct and
>> non-conflicting with the trickle mcast use case.
>> 
>> I don't agree; in my opinion, it's better to release scope 0x03 from
>> "reserved" state and give guidelines for its use.
>> 
>> Let's see how 6man WG consensus develops...
>> 
>> - Ralph
>> 
>> 
>> Specific examples:
>> 1) two adjacent RPL domains, which do not share a prefix but are to be
>> considered as one realm for mDNS
>> 
>> I accept that this is a plausible scenario, but I believe that it
>> presupposes a technical answer from the not-yet occured sdnsext BOF.
>> sDNSext could well mandate a proxy solution where actual multicast
>> packets do
>> not cross that boundary.
>> 
>> 2) one RPL domain and one other non-RPL subnet that are to be
>> considered as one realm for mDNS
>> 
>> Do you mean, in fact, one LLN and another non-LLN technology, which
>> have MPL
>> capable routers connecting them?
>> 
>> I write it this way, because I think that there is a belief that RPL
>> can only
>> be used in LLNs, while the RPL architecture is very specifically for
>> multiple
>> link types, and I find it hard to imagine an MPL capable router which
>> does
>> not also speak RPL.
>> 
>> --
>> 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