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

Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Fri, 12 July 2013 03:16 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 463F021E8083 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:16:50 -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 fU+aI3nJA8KO for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:16:45 -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 7D00B21F9D9D for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.196.81.162] by nm18.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2013 03:16:41 -0000
Received: from [98.138.226.243] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2013 03:16:41 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp114.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2013 03:16:41 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1373599001; bh=RLHZ+mvvySGUcrow4JK1QIet3pELmTlAc7DtZps1v8A=; 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=ID1X4NvZDuwV2btQZ13xrCc8WBiGeQUJUUpQ/84CmgVMn5oTEKL7KcZ2nksi3mc/d5RfzimT9bOcHWltduQXAiraLo6/rvNug0Wex/LCtw1NZAHsyA2Iour9eHOGriMuu5X55IE99TGtuT4GGaHb7mSYT7jI3SJR2NVDdvJrD9c=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 822266.27199.bm@smtp114.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: CxyPhyIVM1k8rvM6Y7W6jsgSNxN5I4jhB5j_AHNWPdv3JN5 CwfkOm3zUsRCg_f45wmJYWhhjRJ8Qt99ij35M.gRpRu1YjGUz2pCtm._u2TI .0m91GbxBzhilc.zZIXQOxRvM00G1mMLQJJl5RnIkxboxgwVpKPTXLzVhlEP abHnv5mkYUE_VzRkXZMR_qXVaTm6EWKHj9e7YveRmf7PzGbmFgYhYgvSUIaX TZg8jZSmX_PjndVLutgPuZ8ES4DyHqS4wIczHYIZSRkh0NqaisCfB0Gi8s7t CKQdTqXSbyGzqGNASxtIUfUjnRCrVZkuGIaOKHKK6p6rtAIAvRO9G4EaxfIA llfPTYGWieLKssXzPGgohEcKghhTMtylwFewL0l11SLXFpC4GFJGPyGRT2lX DHktHfKCptkY_WGGQxlzm829KBoQYty07v4YJzrx9O2aSY4IQjrj2.yaienO NXeq98iYPAJlj3zL.8PHXrJWgXrSpCZ.LrKADb34UlNe6ERXlDZ7KDwgZ5Pw ffy5f71Eiji.SOghRW6_nOFPWedoGB8H.5JCnCKbG6uAb_Q--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@69.105.137.62 with login) by smtp114.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2013 20:16:41 -0700 PDT
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:15:25 -0700
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <CE04C272.220FE%d.sturek@att.net>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local
In-Reply-To: <CAK=bVC_FSDU4a15j=akvhvWtKyq4Kms_yAMu91RCMtQDcca4LA@mail.gmail.com>
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:16:50 -0000

Hi Ulrich,

I think the multi-link subnet is an unfortunate side effect of route over
mesh protocols.

I would be interested in hearing of any solution around this since we (the
folks implementing ZigBee IP) seemed to have to go through a lot of
trouble over multi-link subnets.....

Don


On 7/11/13 5:40 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:

>That's what I feared... I think it's an unfortunate decision.
>
>Btw, should that mean that RFC4903 should be obsoleted?
>
>Ulrich
>
>
>On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdroms@cisco.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson
>>> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines
>>>>>scope
>>>>> 0x03 as:
>>>>
>>>>> 3  Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defined
>>>>> automatically from the network topology
>>>>
>>>>> To be confirmed: will this definition suffice for MPL?
>>>>
>>>> I think it is sufficient, because we understand what it means.
>>>> I am concerned about the word "Network"... which could mean anything
>>>>to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because the intent
>>>>is that
>>>> it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is using.  I
>>>>think that
>>>> is the term that is used in RFC4291.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that having a network-wide, multi-link subnet is a bad idea:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4903
>>
>> That decision has already been made and is carried through many
>>protocols..
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ulrich
>_______________________________________________
>Roll mailing list
>Roll@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll