Re: [v6ops] v6ops Digest, Vol 52, Issue 41

Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> Sat, 20 December 2014 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAA61ACC80 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:22:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.401
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id amGqxf2y24jb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm35.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm35.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [72.30.238.197]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 771841AC435 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:22:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.au; s=s2048; t=1419038560; bh=MF+he5OIBSjphtb9K/4NKUJWnDh5IPqX+134+kkIXAU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=V+wyDpqEd1XqxQPksNlndl3cy569/g1ZATAzMTxYqtYvk2tf9aLWAt9GMu52RrQkQf/Kyr5RZ6I1FkiytyL1w/xdcfzNvIcEJKggRGznq0HbPsVHE1r81aPw9sYPFg68mu02YVaNPe7iTp44wFx2YnyML0IV+LM+NqTcwlt2nbh/WeRjjln7rEIW47B2ds1mwR/fuzIXCHmtXdkozAOW2TkQeuNnQUXbQh/mlQpznZQonJ+Eeobo1TcczxDcrDfCr0h+uCJ1Zg6zM8HYtq6iuhrZUjODv43ATe4jAdoY++I5rEFpgtz8xNt5IGpFGTgFjgZOf9/RzVmb9TNFGFWbJw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s2048; d=yahoo.com.au; b=D5gd2xMims/ZN+crU12U8u8bXzom21OAOxkbGNJQjarexEX5TrrzeRNDx02dF4ECU6d8nPzv5joruRY0oR+8aJOIQCRDbOvnLGgDdos6tSN5UNNtX1KbngfTL5kJsx3NPgC3hKbRsqPsH8Rx223Wha69LPyaiRjecZGfRpsmgIEpN5UCILeRmjsIm37+wPsuH88pniLiZIGcwZrKSGogJVUmeq+Yje4GYhMjYlQT+IccxkZ3eCs853gHashG7xdvARrHHhP6+QWl4Fvm8IwKARRndDjbhVcp98TLvm9uVjGDKJbY4DCp9i71nNaHBtKlkWa0iU06kt1xWqsBJ5QeHw==;
Received: from [98.139.212.150] by nm35.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Dec 2014 01:22:40 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.200] by tm7.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Dec 2014 01:22:40 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1009.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Dec 2014 01:22:40 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 615814.95930.bm@omp1009.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: 6r0pet4VM1k3.D5VUzID3rRPqL4I0XxK2svkMFAdv3C4fkxWExXEhW2EqtmP13t TTcmS70YFQQ.Wfrq4KEy6VdabzIYedTYFt0XTdB0oRN1ndOdPpg_RwRrbH5.VxJMaxqCoIYRFLUW _j.d.EOhNjg96idAI7SvcSkYSdtH7FBgxYY4Tw8P4HgxJwJSGLX9E8vza66fh_wNcXL2fMxp8iES GRoma.OifQ7hQCR09Uf.LKAyeTEGbTtWjAgSEoTqJDy65tGrqHfaC4yuzqGu3UewFYm4Ohi.Xpyk zkXqSzcazFaljxA5POlCI72zF92WV5KcFVK6IBXcDEXHvgf3gGe2ylZW05aFAnIiQE_LVQMptf2z H0WzWicXhSiehqE1JhGKOCukW2zq9aBD2X_hxTWwYVFznB0nH8w8XAX4ZG36Gc1PU9iAb5KzSUwB 0lT5aUgNxGNoXwk7YsAbg10TahANQpEGHj4xmxXjpfPtKXICILSiMy4YNTBkHdn2Ml7xu4KxtLq_ BYst3xsuPhqfRPg--
Received: by 66.196.80.147; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:22:40 +0000
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:21:45 +0000
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Message-ID: <646115130.1536896.1419038505933.JavaMail.yahoo@jws106114.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141219113812.GV28745@Space.Net>
References: <20141219113812.GV28745@Space.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/j-tlvbI6TL1ctYFnOKo-57c58qU
Cc: Tariq Saraj <tariqsaraj@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] v6ops Digest, Vol 52, Issue 41
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 01:22:43 -0000




----- Original Message -----
> From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
> To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; Tariq Saraj <tariqsaraj@gmail.com>; "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014, 22:38
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] v6ops Digest, Vol 52, Issue 41
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:03:32PM +0000, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
>>  > There is no wide-area multicast anyway.
>> 
>>  Technically it should be universal, as DAD uses multicast and DAD is 
> mandatory (except for anycast addresses), which should include tunnels.
> 
> This is not *wide-area* multicast, but link-local.
> 
> Slight difference.
> 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, however 6to4 creates a single NBMA link. As per the RFC4861 text I referenced, NBMA links should emulate a multicast capability. An Internet search found the following draft that seems to specify how multicast was to be emulated over 6to4:

"Support for Multicast over 6to4 Networks"
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-ngtrans-6to4-multicast-01



There seems to be a fairly common belief that the ability to IPv6 multicast across a link is optional, because I think in IPv4 it was.

It seems to me that the IPv6 approach is that the minimum characteristics IPv6 expects of links is to be able to unicast and multicast across them. If a link doesn't support multicast then multicast capability is expected to be emulated below or within the lower part of the IPv6 layer - which is what the text I quoted from RFC4861 says about emulating multicast on point-to-point and NBMA links.

I think the advantage of the IPv6 approach is that there doesn't have to be link capability specific handling with IPv6 itself - all links appear to have the same set of unicast and multicast capabilities. Consequently, any of the standard IPv6 mechanisms, such as Neighbor Discovery DAD or Neighbor Discovery Address Resolution, should work and work the same way over all link types, rather than being different depending on whether the link natively supports multicast or not. Applications that use multicast of any scope should also just work regardless of the underlying link type. So, for example, Multicast DNS, using link-local multicasts, should work over 6to4 NBMA links as seamlessly as it does over 802.3 or 802.11 links.


Regards,
Mark.


> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>