From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 07:35:25 2013 Return-Path: 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 B608111E813F for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 IE5D+5hnpgMu for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B11C11E80E7 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41868 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UtfCB-00044z-4y; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:35:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:35:11 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/116#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.ce8a4e9481c6b0bd00b15335d28d2d9c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.d6cfe14f83c6ca306e7f0311d9ee1435@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 116 In-Reply-To: <067.d6cfe14f83c6ca306e7f0311d9ee1435@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #116: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include/fix/verify definitions/terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:35:26 -0000 #116: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include/fix/verify definitions/terms Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 03 of this draft: Section 3.1 Database is not listed in node resources. "node" without a qualifier seems still missing. Section 4 Thread source section created and pointed to RFC 4593. Section 5 The definition of threat used belongs to RFC 4593 and not RFC 4949 (which the text references) Section 4.1 is 5.3 in version 03 Traffic Analysis was eliminated from this section Section 4.2.1 is 6.1 in version 03 The terms “overclaiming” and “misclaiming” are still without being defined earlier Section 4.3.1 is 7.1 in version 03 remains the same information for overload attack as in version 02 Section 4.3.2 -> 7.2 remains the same information for “Selective forwarding,” “wormhole,” and “sinkhole” that in version 02 Section 5 is section 8 in version 03 The Countering Deliberate Exposure Attacks section was modified, encryption is mentioned. Section 5.1.3 -> 8.1.3 Remains the same information as version 02, few words were changed. Section 6.1 is 9.1 in version 03 Privacy is mentioned in section 8.3.4 and 9.1 with the same information as version 02 [RFC4949] “ $ privacy 1. (I) The right of an entity (normally a person), acting in its own behalf, to determine the degree to which it will interact with its environment, including the degree to which the entity is willing to share its personal information with others. ….. ….. 3. (Deprecated) Synonym for "data confidentiality". ... ... IDOCs are expected to address only communication privacy, which in this Glossary is defined primarily by "data confidentiality" and secondarily by "data integrity"....” -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 07:48:28 2013 Return-Path: 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 6AB8E11E8203 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:48:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 RH67Lfq2q17B for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C368C11E8213 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43032 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UtfOu-0005qL-RX; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:48:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:48:20 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/117#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.7cc58b6122442648788d5af75779a147@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.2ab3aa03f106c42294a1c316eb2b7bc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 117 In-Reply-To: <067.2ab3aa03f106c42294a1c316eb2b7bc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #117: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify/include references X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:48:28 -0000 #117: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify/include references Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 03 of this draft Section 3 Reference to RFC4949 was added, academia papers not added. Section 5.2.3/6.4 are 8.2.3/9.4 in version 03 Remains the same information as version 01 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 08:01:57 2013 Return-Path: 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 208A411E815A for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:01:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 DL0hJ6JhUFaL for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B600411E80D7 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45049 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Utfbt-0005NK-SJ; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:01:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:01:45 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/119#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.55ba8623ad63a2ef70e70bbec97f5677@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.8571ad6f4d633472ef48478791cc6332@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 119 In-Reply-To: <067.8571ad6f4d633472ef48478791cc6332@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #119: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify abstraction/superficial terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:01:57 -0000 #119: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify abstraction/superficial terms Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 03 of this draft, Section 5.2.1/ 5.2.2/ 5.2.3 are 8.2.1/ 8.2.2/ 8.2.3 in version 03 Remains the same information as version 01 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: applicability-ami | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 08:26:51 2013 Return-Path: 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 4DFE211E818D for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:26:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 bfAYTjYXqGDC for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6826111E821D for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47235 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Utfzt-0006eT-4y; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:26:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:26:33 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/115#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.34e64bb8be901fcead998ac2301d397f@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.b8704d3db60284c62fffde3d26abf9e1@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 115 In-Reply-To: <067.b8704d3db60284c62fffde3d26abf9e1@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #115: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Editorial Comments X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:26:51 -0000 #115: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Editorial Comments Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): Additional error in version 03, Section 3: "...assesment.." should be assessment -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: Editorial | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 08:30:42 2013 Return-Path: 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 341B111E822B for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:30:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ZRPpGmRHz2Km for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:30:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC2C11E8186 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47744 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Utg3d-0004WT-2Z; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:30:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:30:25 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/120#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.2ee6e0134fd4088b252aa3fc00c482b9@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.7b6cb03ea57fd43aa95087051a713603@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 120 In-Reply-To: <067.7b6cb03ea57fd43aa95087051a713603@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #120: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify the use of the asset with RFC 4949 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:30:42 -0000 #120: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify the use of the asset with RFC 4949 Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: In version 03 of this draft, In section 3 was added: “...A security assesment can therefore begin with a focus on the assetsRFC4949 [RFC4949] that may be the target of the state changes and the access points in terms of interfaces and protocol exchanges through which such changes may occur...” Section 3.1 was changed to “An asset is an important system resource...” The editorial errors like assesment or assetsRFC4949 are addressed in ticket #115 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 08:58:04 2013 Return-Path: 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 2208211E8262 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:58:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 yf+8RiJG70dX for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC28011E8264 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50982 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UtgUH-0003Sj-Bu; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:57:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:57:57 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/121#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.857ae5d36547297f788f54fc2cbdbff0@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.966e013d1f392cdfd7a3db95de968ef6@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 121 In-Reply-To: <067.966e013d1f392cdfd7a3db95de968ef6@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #121: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Provide a pointer to the concept of control plane and specify it in the figure X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:58:04 -0000 #121: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Provide a pointer to the concept of control plane and specify it in the figure Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 03 of this draft, Section 3, RFC 6192 is not mentioned but Control plane and forwarding plane were defined following this RFC. TBD, If this is just about control plane security. Section 3.1 Should be reiterated that the Figure is just about the control plane. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Mon Jul 1 11:24:38 2013 Return-Path: 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 D037C11E81F7 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MKYB6O8Q9R+p for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75B011E81EB for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id cm16so2274148qab.14 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 11:24:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=R62HNkcKGB2o+l4EdWtCsAt629jYtK81zHZLkezAGKg=; b=GHk/mDs+6eL3W9aIFcX15gDZ4n1l0FLdljROq9n3xZNpAAQyn23YLEtNCxDCfTrY5O /h+Bx4WNNVzAs2h4odut+Eag8d5kcdpKSGXMPao1MzF3k1Lagm4tBmfCkZJIoJnICTrv pKFUp4+4hJW7P1tTUPKvmVN6om1Dw3mUEVYUrcVrHREiaKRHYTAUo3MzZ3U8tU1GcoAl seImkr4UU1aW6uuCvOSGxbJKMneVxviTQbidCADaWIzdcu6bkskl11vAsiRe3CVtEN3E j17dd52+ry3dD0wZm6YGiG4XGAtfMAMgHQjHsN2xgqzoPYZE9ve4C4yW3l7nr3TJifaE AKYQ== X-Received: by 10.224.180.133 with SMTP id bu5mr33877946qab.50.1372703071568; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 11:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-i7prhfzrgrwle.d.cisco.com ([2001:420:2c52:1316:f9c6:c3df:d81:5cf6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gn4sm31866841qab.8.2013.07.01.11.24.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jul 2013 11:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <027b01ce570b$12772ce0$376586a0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:24:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <67F80052-9195-48AB-B616-B4203D06A0C8@gmail.com> References: <027b01ce570b$12772ce0$376586a0$@olddog.co.uk> To: "roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] Status of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:24:38 -0000 I don't see any updates on the status of = draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 in the list archive since Adrian put it = into "AD is Watching". What is the current WG status of the document = and is there a plan for re-submitting it to the IESG? - Ralph On May 22, 2013, at 12:40 PM 5/22/13, Adrian Farrel = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Reading the recent thread, I assume that the publication request (made = by > setting the document state to "Submitted to IESG for Publication") was = made in > error.=20 >=20 > I have stopped my AD review and put the IESG document state into "AD = is > Watching" pending receiving another publication request. >=20 > In the meantime, two things... >=20 > 1. My review so far. > I hadn't got very far, and don't have much, but if the document is = open for > edits, you might as well have what I noted up to now. > --- > The first paragraph of Section 1 would benefit from some citations for > "traditional IPv6 multicast routing and forwarding." > --- > I found section 3 rather sparse. Questions it might be nice to answer > include: >=20 > - can this be run over a wired (non-lossy, non-constrained = environment) > - should this be contained at the LBR, and if so, can mcast traffic be > gatewayed into the Internet > - can MPL operate in a mixed environment where not all routers are MPL > capable? > - do the hosts need to be in any way aware that their mcast is = supported > by MPL? > --- >=20 > 2. Code point allocation. > Unfortunately, the mistaken publication request arrived just when the = IESG and > IANA were going to agree on the revised early allocation. Seeing that = the > document would go to the IANA for review in just a few days, we agreed = not to do > anything about the revised early allocation request. >=20 > Now that the document will presumably be delayed by some time, I will = restart > the revised early allocation request and try to expedite it. >=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 13:26:14 2013 Return-Path: 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 8704111E8251 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:26:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 hv+sADVhR2YK for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002B311E8228 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52000 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Utkfm-0002dE-Sa; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:26:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:26:06 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/122#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.b883b84f150345633497c8568f5d4c99@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.0cf091d70127989abbccb3b339b77920@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 122 In-Reply-To: <067.0cf091d70127989abbccb3b339b77920@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #122: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- CIA model fails to differentiate authentication, integrity, and authorization X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:26:14 -0000 #122: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- CIA model fails to differentiate authentication, integrity, and authorization Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: In version 03 of this draft, CIA was replaced by ISO 7498-2 Security Reference Model in the whole document. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 20:21:11 2013 Return-Path: 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 245E111E83A4 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:21:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 pYRMH4OxEHZr for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D842611E837C for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39804 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Utr9I-0003ch-45; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 05:21:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 03:20:59 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/124#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.1a1d3ddb145ad28e80ab2b708c8b74cf@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.fdab363d655b1902d82f78e9aebff2a7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 124 In-Reply-To: <067.fdab363d655b1902d82f78e9aebff2a7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include further explanation X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 03:21:11 -0000 #124: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Include further explanation Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 03 of this draft, Section 3.2 Availability paragraph mentions forwarding services. Last paragraph do reference to ROLL. Section 5.2.4/ 5.3.1/ 5.3.4/ 5.3.5/ 6.1/ 6.2 are section 8.2.4/ 8.3.1/ 8.3.4/ 8.3.5/ 9.1/ 9.2 in version 03 Remains the same information related to the issue that in version 01 Section 6.4 -> 9.4 “ … a LLN is also encouraged to have automatic …” is present in version 03 Section 8 -> 11 The document do reference ISO 7498-2. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 20:36:49 2013 Return-Path: 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 4906111E83AE for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:36:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 udhsbyec2Jqs for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFFB11E83A4 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41388 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UtrOX-0002hW-Sk; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 05:36:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 03:36:45 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/125#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.2c3f5d7696ee624e168fbdafa794c8da@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.b8a42ee3aa07b56a25c0575de68ce20e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 125 In-Reply-To: <067.b8a42ee3aa07b56a25c0575de68ce20e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #125: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Delete section/terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 03:36:49 -0000 #125: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Delete section/terms Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): In version 03 of this draft, Section 5.1.2 is section 8.1.2 in version 03 Device compromise and the key length are mentioned. Section 5.1.4 / 5.3.3 -> 8.1.4/ 8.3.3 This section remains with the same information that in version 01 -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 1 20:42:46 2013 Return-Path: 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 6DCF521F9D95 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:42:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Tny5f5Nbi3Q8 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB7121F9D38 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41632 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UtrUJ-0007r2-Su; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 05:42:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 03:42:43 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/119#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.b886651bd5a240bea20819f586dd8737@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.8571ad6f4d633472ef48478791cc6332@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 119 In-Reply-To: <067.8571ad6f4d633472ef48478791cc6332@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #119: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify abstraction/superficial terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 03:42:46 -0000 #119: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Verify abstraction/superficial terms Changes (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com): * component: applicability-ami => security-threats -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Tue Jul 2 07:40:19 2013 Return-Path: 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 EA3F221F9F28 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:40:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Q8hpS3kMsVP3 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8A521F9F23 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56630 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Uu1kW-00046Z-BY; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:40:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:40:07 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/128#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.d1078fc5c4cb437a2c2c83a3dc10d6a9@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 128 In-Reply-To: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:40:20 -0000 #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? Comment (by mcr@sandelman.ca): > can MPL operate in a mixed environment where not all routers are MPL capable? I think that MPL can not operate in a mixed environment. An MPL aware router could route between MPL and traditional multicast routing protocols, and this could occur even if the router was one-armed. > do the hosts need to be in any way aware that their mcast is supported by MPL? I believe that non-MPL aware hosts will not be listening to the right subnet-local mcast groups, and so they will not see the MPL. MPL and non-MPL multicast will be ships in the night. -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Tue Jul 2 07:40:50 2013 Return-Path: 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 54E2C21F9F4D for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:40:50 -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 bQSRjPGfANRz for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3739021F9F41 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:40:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496602017C; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EF9AE63A88; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF3663A5E; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:39:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <67F80052-9195-48AB-B616-B4203D06A0C8@gmail.com> References: <027b01ce570b$12772ce0$376586a0$@olddog.co.uk> <67F80052-9195-48AB-B616-B4203D06A0C8@gmail.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Roll] Status of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:40:50 -0000 --=-=-= Ralph Droms wrote: > I don't see any updates on the status of > draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 in the list archive since Adrian put > it into "AD is Watching". What is the current WG status of the > document and is there a plan for re-submitting it to the IESG? I admin that I don't know where we are right now. Every spare IETF minute I have has been spent on the security-threats document. I originally *thought* that it was just a question of the code points and that we were ready for publication, and I think that we have a Shepard write-up, but subsequent to that, it became clear that we have unresolved WG LC issues. I think that the issues involved are: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&group=component&order=priority Perhaps we can focus on bug #128 this week. http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/128 -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUdLmIIqHRg3pndX9AQIgCwQA3nENk4AbpfSTv+4r9kiA2zaymxsDEBAa qovZV6I5bUGzVBV7ukI9UgwjIPR8Kea3I81CioJHUVjw+Ka2Ia6CAFWXDzo3VFGC z5xMyeVT1iCVuRG20GA6utBjve/NJilnHHGFSaU2K3sj+iONtnwx3FmrLv2Ch5cc oCLZhmPdvi8= =Lkxh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jul 4 08:27:38 2013 Return-Path: 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 402CE11E812E for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:27:38 -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 f1CxmzVI+GQ3 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B1011E812C for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93652018B; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 5B829A902A; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48563636AD; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Antonio Junior , roll@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20130704151853.3893.99513.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20130704151853.3893.99513.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [Roll] New draft waiting for approval: draft-ietf-roll-ajunior-energy-awareness X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 15:27:38 -0000 --=-=-= IETF I-D Submission Tool wrote: ietf> WG chair approval is needed for posting of ietf> draft-ietf-roll-ajunior-energy-awareness-00. ietf> To approve the draft, go to this URL (note: you need to login to be ietf> File name : draft-ietf-roll-ajunior-energy-awareness Version : 00 ietf> Submission date : 2013-07-04 Group : roll ietf> Title : Energy-awareness metrics global applicability guidelines ietf> Document date : 2013-07-04 Pages : 15 File size : 33.5 KB ietf> Submitter : Antonio Junior ietf> Abstract : This document describes a new set of energy-awareness ietf> metrics which have been devised to be applicable to any multihop ietf> routing protocol having in mind LLNs, including the Routing for Low ietf> Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) protocol. Hi, thanks for the draft. Please be aware that the WG must formally adopt a document prior to it having the name draft-ietf-roll-* Please name your document draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness, and it will be accepted. I look forward to reading it. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUdWUIIqHRg3pndX9AQIiTgP+JHvMwr1DXEWdXKDsbOWXD9oleBm9Jgf6 e1xK4xc2YhTzFS2E1I18Ajyg0AmfIFV2+u0rYKqFCG1zf4oUWiJL3yALD/+yKVU2 WREhiwWMrxX79TufhLG9mwJXtclb7DbQF9Ih3bw/Uq+rTG3zVGMzZjgVGqrLiwiX xMHasRcfZ4Q= =+Dt8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Jul 4 08:51:31 2013 Return-Path: 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 B367911E812E for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:51:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 fil2j9ygEU5v for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFACC11E8133 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58674 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UuloX-0000qL-3w; Thu, 04 Jul 2013 17:51:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 15:51:21 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/125#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.85e32d7a6037e659d15895e08ded5fc1@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.b8a42ee3aa07b56a25c0575de68ce20e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 125 In-Reply-To: <067.b8a42ee3aa07b56a25c0575de68ce20e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #125: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Delete section/terms X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 15:51:31 -0000 #125: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01.txt --- Delete section/terms Comment (by mcr@sandelman.ca): Version -04 tries to fix all of these issues, section 8.1.4 on anti- tampering is removed. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | tzeta.tsao@cooperindustries.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: security-threats | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: roll From cabo@tzi.org Thu Jul 4 12:50:29 2013 Return-Path: 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 80F1711E81A1; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:50:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 TvpV2ZL70Ah3; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BBB11E81A3; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:50:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r64JoKMG027779; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 21:50:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p548940C7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.64.199]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E20393FA1; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 21:50:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 21:50:15 +0200 To: "lwip@ietf.org" , "core@ietf.org WG" , roll WG , "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, dice@ietf.org, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, IETF 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Subject: [Roll] Constrained Node/Network Cluster @ IETF87 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:50:29 -0000 Here is my usual eclectic condensed agenda. All times are CEST = (UTC+0200). Note that there is no ROLL meeting in Berlin (and, as usual, no 6lowpan = meeting, but indeed a 6lo BOF). Note that the times can still change in the course of conflict = resolution. The CoRE/saag conflict is unfortunate, but because of the overful agenda = there is little chance in fixing it. We probably should do all security-related CoRE work on Monday. Let me also take the opportunity to point to the colocated ETSI 6lowpan = plugtest on July 27/28. You can still register (and thanks to EC support, there is no charge)! http://www.etsi.org/news-events/events/663-2013-6lowpan-plugtests Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten MONDAY, July 29, 2013 0900-1130 Morning Session I Charl_burg 2/3 APP appsawg Applications Area Working Group WG - = Combined with APPAREA Potsdam 1 INT homenet Home Networking WG Schoeneberg 1/2 OPS eman Energy Management WG - 0900-1000 Potsdam 2 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Potsdam 3 APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG 1510-1610 Afternoon Session II Bellevue INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG Charl_burg 2/3 TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group WG 1620-1720 Afternoon Session III Bellevue INT 6man IPv6 Maintenance WG TUESDAY, July 30, 2013 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Potsdam 1 OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Potsdam 3 RTG rtgarea Routing Area Open Meeting Charl_burg 2/3 SEC jose Javascript Object Signing and Encryption = WG 1520-1650 Afternoon Session II Bellevue INT *** 6tsch Deterministic IPv6 over IEEE802.15.4e = Timeslotted Channel Hopping BOF WEDNESDAY, July 31, 2013 0900-1130 Morning Session I Potsdam 1 OPS v6ops IPv6 Operations WG Tiergarten 1/2 SEC oauth Web Authorization Protocol WG 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Potsdam 3 INT *** lwig Light-Weight Implementation Guidance WG Potsdam 2 SEC httpauth Hypertext Transfer Protocol = Authentication WG 1510-1610 Afternoon Session II Potsdam 2 APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG Potsdam 3 SEC *** dice DTLS In Constrained Environments BOF 1620-1720 Afternoon Session III Potsdam 2 APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG THURSDAY, August 1, 2013 0900-1020 Morning Session I Potsdam 2 APP json JavaScript Object Notation WG Potsdam 3 TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1030-1130 Morning Session II Potsdam 3 TSV tsvarea Transport Area Open Meeting 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Bellevue APP *** core Constrained RESTful Environments WG Potsdam 1 SEC saag Security Area Open Meeting Charl_burg 2/3 TSV rmcat RTP Media Congestion Avoidance = Techniques WG 1700-1830 Afternoon Session III Bellevue INT *** 6lo IPv6 over networks of = resource-constrained nodes BOF FRIDAY, August 2, 2013 0900-1100 Morning Session I Bellevue APP httpbis Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis WG Potsdam 3 INT dnssdext DNS-SD Extensions BOF Charl_burg 1 SEC tls Transport Layer Security WG 1120-1220 Afternoon Session I Potsdam 3 INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG 1230-1330 Afternoon Session II Potsdam 3 INT intarea Internet Area Working Group WG From yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp Thu Jul 4 19:42:27 2013 Return-Path: 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 5862B11E821F for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:42:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 Fdmv39YuZ4iZ for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6F011E8109 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.232.103]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id r652g6M7006466 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from tsbmgw-mgw01 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r652g6ju008882 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:06 +0900 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw01 (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1) with SMTP ID 625 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r652g5ag008873 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:06 +0900 Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id r652g6FQ009968 for roll@ietf.org; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id MAA09967; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:06 +0900 Received: from mx11.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id r652g56p018486 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id r652g5KM014041; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.196.16.110] (ncg-dhcp110.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp [133.196.16.110]) by spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEDE097D6E for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:42:04 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <51D6327B.4000906@toshiba.co.jp> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:42:03 +0900 From: Yusuke DOI User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org References: <20130705022221.1535.10046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130705022221.1535.10046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130705022221.1535.10046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Roll] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 02:42:27 -0000 Hi, I just submitted my initial proposal on MPL parameter configuration option for DHCPv6. This is to configure per-environment / per-application trickle parameter set of MPL. I've just noticed there is no roll WG meeting in coming IETF (thanks Carsten for the summary). If there are anybody who are interested in this topic, please let me know. I'll be in Berlin and I'm glad if I can discuss this in F2F. Regards, Yusuke -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00.txt Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:22:21 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : MPL Parameter Configuration Option for DHCPv6 Author(s) : Yusuke Doi Filename : draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2013-07-04 Abstract: This draft is to define a way to configure MPL parameter via DHCPv6 option. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From jvasseur@cisco.com Thu Jul 4 23:40:48 2013 Return-Path: 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 0472911E8234 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 23:40:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 ANX8r3ETzMhb for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 23:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC0D11E824F for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 23:40:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2929; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373006440; x=1374216040; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=GEksa2Dh/F7FZA/nfu4GsUud3FzS81lLA2oW33/MyP4=; b=D82zzRp7hAZnBpSO/VXzKDCNDNMzut2LO2QPC27Ehn+pug33v4A3i291 /4x0wRRbDTmO2SvwZ5XHtLqjXAtJ0LL6JyeEQB14vYlW5N2xdGUY63kZM 8MEfjnvEp9NjzDbxRmEmW9h6b1LHR2FLGrGvBWe/tnDAcQSM4Z8OzascD M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAKFp1lGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABagwkyScA8fxZ0giMBAQEDAQEBATcxAwsFCwIBCBgKFAULJwslAgQOBQgTh24GDLhiBI46fgIxB4MEaQOTd5UXgViBOYIo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1000,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="231184777" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jul 2013 06:40:39 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r656ed9j018836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:40:39 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.192]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 01:40:38 -0500 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: SM Thread-Topic: [Roll] Last Call: (Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC Thread-Index: AQHOeUqPXK3qJn4qUka7wcRB95IYvg== Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:40:38 +0000 Message-ID: <03B78081B371D44390ED6E7BADBB4A772361B305@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> References: <20130316171751.11374.33419.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130330183240.0bdade90@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130330183240.0bdade90@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.60.114.229] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <08D74338449DEC40A9EC34197733D94B@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call: (Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 06:40:48 -0000 Dear SM, Many thanks for your review - please see inline, On Mar 31, 2013, at 3:57 AM, SM wrote: > At 10:17 16-03-2013, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Over Low power and Loss= y >> networks WG (roll) to consider the following document: >> - 'Terminology in Low power And Lossy Networks' >> as Informational RFC >>=20 >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-03-30. Exceptionally, comments may b= e >=20 > I took a quick look at the document. >=20 > In Section 2: >=20 > "Thus in order to avoid confusion or discrepancies, this document > specifies the common terminology to be used in all ROLL > Working Group documents." >=20 > It may be better to define terminology for a technology and not for work = within a working group only. >=20 JP> Yes I agree, although the scope may be a bit wide - that being said, si= nce we started the document, terms such such Internet of Things have been widely adopted and will help referring to a set of technologies, = as opposed to a specific WG. By the way, you are right that these terms are now use beyond the ROLL WG. NEW: "Thus in order to avoid confusion or discrepancies, this document spec= ifies the common terminology to be used in documents produced=20 by Working Groups specifying solutions for the Internet of Things" > "This document should be listed as an informative reference." >=20 > As the document defines terminology it might have to be a normative refer= ence in other documents. It's easier to leave it to document authors to de= termine whether the reference should be normative or informative. JP> Makes total sense, good catch. >=20 > In Section 2: >=20 > 'Downstream: Data direction traveling from outside of the LLN (e.g. > traffic coming from a LAN, WAN or the Internet) via a LBR, or in > general "deeper" in the Directed Acyclic Graph computed by the > routing protocol.' >=20 > LBR is in the next paragraph. There are other such cases in draft-ietf-r= oll-terminology-12. >=20 JP> Yes but I don't think that this is an issue - there are cases where you= even have unavoidable loops ;-) > "Smart Grid: A Smart Grid is a broad class of applications to network > and automate utility infrastructure." >=20 JP> The term is purposely extremely generic and has been reviewed by variou= s expert in the field in the WG. Many Thanks for your comments. JP. > I suggest running this definition through the Smart Power Directorate to = avoid any conflicting definition in future. >=20 > Regards, > -sm=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From jvasseur@cisco.com Fri Jul 5 00:00:54 2013 Return-Path: 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 A748421F93E5; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 00:00:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 Gk2jg4WHt++8; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 00:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070DB11E811D; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 00:00:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3267; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373007649; x=1374217249; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=BjHlmlcoQPa+9bgTDrJ5sHNuOJMif+ibRjQmIx1eES4=; b=NSGwoPNyjcMPEz4Uhs1CwgA9lHYht8pMmRVv7qJAmTwf6o82HWycGx/N iyVYPg8r9Zlit7boPB3uIZ0+/c4tio2KLFUaD8a34BljimWr1572Qg2Pr flYJDzz5YaKz4uC8EpPcgCsEgZBo6nFzINCOdc3ax0QOMm4OT8LmguMCF A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFAMFu1lGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwl7wDB/FnSCIwEBAQMBbAYEAwULAgEIDhQkMiUCBA4NE4duBrhujzgCMQeDBGkDiGugI4MRgig X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1000,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="231185426" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jul 2013 07:00:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6570mnO005208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 07:00:48 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.192]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 02:00:47 -0500 From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" To: Carsten Bormann Thread-Topic: AppsDir review of draft-ietf-roll-terminology-12.txt Thread-Index: AQHOeU1foqMjtDnPakqZRKa7TCB+UA== Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 07:00:47 +0000 Message-ID: <03B78081B371D44390ED6E7BADBB4A772361B5FE@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> References: <170220D0-A68F-4CAD-9363-549C586772CA@tzi.org> <028a01ce2d2f$79d220d0$6d766270$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.60.114.229] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" , "" , IETF Apps Discuss , The IESG Subject: Re: [Roll] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-roll-terminology-12.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:00:54 -0000 Hi Carsten, Thanks, I will add a sentence at the beginning ... "The intent of this docu= ment is to provide a high level definition of terms=20 used in various documents produced by Working Groups specifying solutions f= or the Internet of Things." This way the=20 document will stay in the spirit of the objectives of that draft in ROLL. Does that address your concern ? Thanks. JP. On Mar 30, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Hi Adrian, >=20 > thanks for trying to read my somewhat terse statements, and I apologize f= or making them as easy to misunderstand as I did. >=20 > I didn't pay attention to the discussion that led up to this document. > I was trying to read it from scratch as a document that somebody from a d= ifferent area would use to gain access to the terminology used in the ROLL = work. >=20 > With my critique, I was less interested in the stylistic issues but in th= e definitional intent. >=20 > I think we can all agree that terms like "flash memory" or "field device"= are useful in the vocabulary of someone trying understand ROLL documents. > There is no need to "define" these terms, as they already work in their i= ndustry-standard usage. > So that would be the glossary aspect of the document: gathering informati= on about these terms that is focused on the ROLL context. E.g., highlighti= ng the potential constrainedness of field devices makes this glossary entry= more immediately useful than a Wikipedia entry (which strangely doesn't ex= ist) would be. >=20 > Re the coverage: I used U-LLN as an example of a potentially missing ter= m because draft-tripathi-roll-reactive-applicability-00.txt uses it as if t= he reader were expected to know it. > Fortunately, its first use there is close to a reference to 5548, so the = definition was easy to find. > But. more generally speaking, if the intent is to list terms that are *no= t* defined in the RFCs, that would also be a useful way of scoping. >=20 > I was expecting more definitional intent on the terms that have been inve= nted or appropriated for and by ROLL. =20 > But maybe that is a misunderstanding on my part of what this document is = about (the WG charter did not help me in identifying its objective, and the= introduction reads like there is defining intent). >=20 >=20 > So, in summary, if the WG intends this to be a loose collection of a numb= er of background terms with a glossary-like intent, there is indeed only a = bit more editorial work remaining, starting with clarifying that objective.= Maybe the alphabetic arrangement should have alerted me that this might r= eally be the objective. >=20 > But then, coming from an applications area point of view, I'm still looki= ng forward to a future ROLL terminology document. Is "MP2P" a traffic patt= ern while "P2MP" isn't? What is the relationship between RFC 4461 "P2MP LS= P"s and what is called "P2MP" in RFC 6550? What is the relationship betwee= n RFC 1112's "multicast" and what is called "multicast" in draft-ietf-roll-= trickle-mcast-04.txt, which just completed WGLC? What is the relationship = between RFC 1122's "host"s and RFC 6550's "host"s? What *is* an LLN? >=20 > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten >=20 From antoniocojr@gmail.com Thu Jul 11 06:13:06 2013 Return-Path: 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 4D4C021F9FF2 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:13:06 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 hER1fpW739Z9 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x22a.google.com (mail-qe0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2553311E8115 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f42.google.com with SMTP id s14so4406676qeb.29 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:13:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vtPQRIh5d4LHHAyt4Zrzv7NtP6grMUOPBXO+15M0ev4=; b=0SGzGu3Eee+FIHtX7d64jqGTPFpJyD5premOW3hNQiiwI1us1PXqU0VoMUHixe5Uox YdF/MrDLqmqYYa91owBmvQsh+VNMEoW9VtA/LJiDU45fDJKwDlL1FsGVqNRLR96JsXUH /wQXFzgayMOeiHU3pfqmXOwDh8XEEEMs4++f0QRTLT89ZVJEEuySj10AHm79UIkOkfjd xjmzdhsg12TDy/Dp8antjn5oE+4axRbTirgbOeFrhdg1hqJpKIjxl1M5zocgAfZOg9AK tNO6ksS2GNtZB/oEQMPjQ3nIg302fhZxgH+dYnk5P/TLpxDbCu9aY+rpF4Yw8XSR/qaR kAzQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.131.36 with SMTP id oj4mr29859261qeb.51.1373548382527; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.130.102 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:13:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130711130334.24213.76490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20130711130334.24213.76490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:13:02 -0300 Message-ID: From: Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Junior To: roll@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb03d366c293f04e13c2782 Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:13:06 -0000 --047d7bb03d366c293f04e13c2782 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear All, We have submitted the draft (draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00). We are working on implementing the energy-aware metrics on RPL implementations such as SimpleRPL, ContikiRPL or TinyRPL. We appreciate your comments, BR, -- Antonio C. Oliveira Junior, PhD Student Computer Science MAP-i Doctoral Programme (www.map.edu.pt/i) Researcher at SITILabs (http://siti.ulusofona.pt/) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 11 July 2013 10:03 Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt To: Antonio Junior , Rute Sofia < rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt> A new version of I-D, draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Antonio Junior and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness Revision: 00 Title: Energy-awareness metrics global applicability guidelines Creation date: 2013-07-11 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 15 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00 Abstract: This document describes a new set of energy-awareness metrics which have been devised to be applicable to any multihop routing protocol having in mind LLNs, including the Routing for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) protocol. The IETF Secretariat --047d7bb03d366c293f04e13c2782 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,

We have submitted the draft (= draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00).=A0

We are= working on implementing the energy-aware metrics on RPL implementations su= ch as SimpleRPL, ContikiRPL or TinyRPL.

We appreciate your comments,

B= R,
--=A0
Antonio C. Oliveira Junior, PhD Student Computer Scie= nce
MAP-i Doctoral Programme (www.map.edu.pt/i)
Researcher at SITILabs (http://siti.ulusofona.pt/)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org<= /a>>
Date: 11 July 2013 10:03
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-aju= nior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt
To: Antonio Junior <antoniocojr@gmail.com>, = Rute Sofia <rute.sofia@ulusofona.pt>



A new version of I-D, draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Antonio Junior and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A000
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Energy-awareness metrics global applicability gu= idelines
Creation date: =A0 2013-07-11
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 15
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.i= etf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.o= rg/doc/draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/dr= aft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00


Abstract:
=A0 =A0This document describes a new set of energy-awareness metrics which<= br> =A0 =A0have been devised to be applicable to any multihop routing protocol<= br> =A0 =A0having in mind LLNs, including the Routing for Low Power and Lossy =A0 =A0Networks (RPL) protocol.




The IETF Secretariat

--047d7bb03d366c293f04e13c2782-- From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Jul 11 13:22:29 2013 Return-Path: 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 EBB1B21F99F9 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 w00VHFoOa0y2 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BFE21F9EB8 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49993 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UxNNe-0007W8-1B; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:22:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca, rdroms@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:22:21 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/128#comment:3 Message-ID: <082.a3c6d181235e95142a4efbdf979fe23b@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 128 In-Reply-To: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, mcr@sandelman.ca, rdroms@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:22:30 -0000 #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? Comment (by rdroms@cisco.com): Whether or not MPL is contained at the LBR is a deployment decision. Personally, I think it should be, and other multicast forwarding should be used in non-lossy networks. MPL is constructed to allow multicast messages with scope greater than the lossy network to be carried within MPL, using MPL as a transport within the lossy network. Similarly, a MPL forwarder can accept traffic from a non-MPL host on the lossy network, perform the encapsulation, and forward the traffic. There are details of registering for a multicast group to allow the MPL forwarded to deliver encapsulated traffic to a non-MPL host. These issues should be addressed in the Applicability statement. -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Thu Jul 11 13:27:52 2013 Return-Path: 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 9534521F9396 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:27:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cNsQwcFYzEsK for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-x236.google.com (mail-qe0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B2721F9930 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ne12so4780632qeb.27 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:27:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=4XUkvzdza4DzD9XuH651Lc1O85sauIqFZWtGCKfjMv8=; b=CoxNwW2lgVNglDvjrnETybcuMosWXLsbPY7HE+S1gr72mJ4dovnAXppjzhxOzbBO29 3bSfYnBH9PO9+ylcFw/ha/ux0L5ICsSKrcPT8CaG7b0OYzMjRsHQ9H61eJRRtQ5MVIwp AfO+XWMObrqDt2JZ25I0EpXLlVxsEW1EBnuOkyl8tFB46vRw9WfU6oovqxlsYCevN7sJ gsAxWQMuj4QzQoZBIn4pS/zY+Cu8U6k6C13xD3Hy2VX0mf0SQJSfKdTFTX6s57syPYfC TVwhgrhJB1QiwGI7ZWQC4QXsiSheZfLGlOG4gzlUPhL5wBFT8Jyw304+LXdmT39ABSs6 lPcA== X-Received: by 10.224.166.135 with SMTP id m7mr27279155qay.55.1373574427068; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:2481:20:58ff:687a:8198:1172? ([2001:420:2481:20:58ff:687a:8198:1172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm31829290qas.10.2013.07.11.13.27.05 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <706.1372775970@sandelman.ca> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:27:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <027b01ce570b$12772ce0$376586a0$@olddog.co.uk> <67F80052-9195-48AB-B616-B4203D06A0C8@gmail.com> <706.1372775970@sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] Status of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:27:52 -0000 On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:39 AM 7/2/13, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 > Ralph Droms wrote: >> I don't see any updates on the status of >> draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 in the list archive since Adrian put >> it into "AD is Watching". What is the current WG status of the >> document and is there a plan for re-submitting it to the IESG? >=20 > I admin that I don't know where we are right now. > Every spare IETF minute I have has been spent on the security-threats > document. >=20 > I originally *thought* that it was just a question of the code points = and > that we were ready for publication, and I think that we have a Shepard > write-up, but subsequent to that, it became clear that we have = unresolved WG > LC issues. >=20 > I think that the issues involved are: >=20 > = http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/query?status=3Dassigned&status=3Dn= ew&status=3Dreopened&group=3Dcomponent&order=3Dpriority >=20 > Perhaps we can focus on bug #128 this week. > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/128 OK - I contributed to the discussion of issue 128, hoping to kick-start = resolution... - Ralph >=20 >=20 > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh = networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network = architect [ > ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on = rails [ >=20 >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >=20 >=20 From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Jul 11 13:44:09 2013 Return-Path: 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 2E69111E8176 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:44:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 t3UVu-mYiALW for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DA621F9DA8 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52443 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UxNih-0002OU-Ok; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:44:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, rdroms@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:44:07 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/129#comment:1 Message-ID: <082.734dd1779880d549745a9362f870ba4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.eb8cd06a193daa93167f1567d59337cc@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 129 In-Reply-To: <067.eb8cd06a193daa93167f1567d59337cc@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, rdroms@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:44:09 -0000 #129: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? Comment (by rdroms@cisco.com): And, assuming Kerry's comment is correct that PROACTIVE_FORWARDING applies to an entire MPL Domain, can PROACTIVE_FORWARDING by changed dynamically during the lifetime of a MPL domain or is it a static parameter? -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org Thu Jul 11 13:47:17 2013 Return-Path: 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 07F5421F9FD6 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:47:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 AXwmsP4UffLa for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E9821F9FCF for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52888 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UxNlh-00068E-OY; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:47:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "roll issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, rdroms@cisco.com X-Trac-Project: roll Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:47:13 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/132#comment:2 Message-ID: <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 132 In-Reply-To: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, rdroms@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: roll@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:47:17 -0000 #132: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Comment (by rdroms@cisco.com): 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? -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mariainesrobles@gmail.com | Owner: johui@cisco.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: trickle-mcast | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------------------+------------------------------ Ticket URL: roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jul 11 14:15:32 2013 Return-Path: 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 3169A21E804D for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:15:32 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 rdIzMihGACSU for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7872121E804B for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:3a60:77ff:fe38:e647]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA24C20256; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9A21063A5E; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CFA63732; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:14:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: rdroms@cisco.com Subject: [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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:15:32 -0000 --=-=-= > 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. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUd8gG4qHRg3pndX9AQJu8gQA0aSkgDVz+buBo1sSDdBLDoZ83ld5S7hJ iWBAO0A9MXiMLWf7UhuDTfUiYa8t8C0/rUb0lsgIvhMhfenM2CZVyGqPOo5v6BCT XmqTx4duwFF1IoPvQqG7V86lnsjw/dYor0L8eID0GFcy6kGln0i2uOkLSAm0k+un KQkdLU1iaH4= =1g33 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Jul 11 15:29:41 2013 Return-Path: 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 C27D211E81C5 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 bD02oXvy+AhS for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x22b.google.com (mail-vb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3431111E81B9 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so1040941vbg.16 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zflH4qVvMv8vE1rJOv3Fl81FvfPPR14gtUppjO0GRoY=; b=imyT77uBJdp6nUkJk7BwbB80ykUh/QZIVmDnWKQ0krgz2odTM/EvxyuelZmv+B7SzX rBrkJOeNQpLWcaqtlgPxvh6/QSEGDfQPEU+BLirbsF0QoVKYUrWD/8Rte0r2xg7sphps 9ZNJuA5qBl55iXji2h23ykQv07WzEUqq+fgys= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=zflH4qVvMv8vE1rJOv3Fl81FvfPPR14gtUppjO0GRoY=; b=hXLuVYZBt6PctR+IotE/bh5THNb+4+x8uJvp2HoXyZoT+0JsWKyj+6Puf98PnsAumI Ix3qfc/RPqgijaRfnhTAc3VR7AhrMT/c+nO31bnNmT960dW8fDIk0NyE6P1FZyBDUnz7 MFj5LJloPp2a+AKT9AeMUnFqcM7yWAcur1ffnjNn4oRSUPiIZ4NZ30MSPkDbpwyF/1Hm ceC9FsEPaSEa2+SdmVBDLbkeGp6rO3cMhIYOsye4sXKF9FgUc7a/+kvZtXe3bBZYGqBu fEA1CSgW+PPYOlzGcQFVx5gQzxOTSoSSgU+jOTjj1nl0XQYGLd3iarepZ77740zlkMg7 gXfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.34.69 with SMTP id x5mr23076916vei.11.1373581780469; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.55.70 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:29:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoPtrPQsqSCZnbLOuL2UYCtRCNutzx/iMuqNkqClBd/00UhKQZlRs6+LQ6admrH3aYy/TH Cc: rdroms@cisco.com 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:29:41 -0000 On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson 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 Regards Ulrich From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Jul 11 17:40:20 2013 Return-Path: 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 972E911E81F8 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 sXg1nigY+8xO for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81B311E81F4 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id c13so7756806vea.7 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iqTgl4ta9tbgFwSiN4yy4ntvcHojQQyJmAcbCPxL+Ug=; b=zIxb2QnaoX8QE5xcNx8GJdcBBrlZPSNKT20IcBWYTzbqWeMJZSlJTHKd67jG4Jajds mMFvrjkxH2UYM3+F1enSbxzR2ugsKcjq8ggGXa0W/k4v1in2qTw4YIfW2dJmWelg8AKe ZWG5rO5gGx8GjwlxQRdcHmPhmar8bC0HT4GeE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=iqTgl4ta9tbgFwSiN4yy4ntvcHojQQyJmAcbCPxL+Ug=; b=KM/PWBlJhBf2VuVsigSQ508WRdCxO80IxqCJisiSBtwg5pqcMHenNHEeNPOni8dshk 52Lzcw5LRpP2pYzUfEMz8MbSqdauL8VGGwtCUmrApSQqD7xAVs9YBac1lcoxrvB27SR4 B3XImL/eKGQgTfxabUoXNLC9/uUKi6N0DD4UJe1V0ioEG795rGCvJiTJSC3H61YKLKWj CvIzreaBLN4XFEEEH00jVhW+JCNQwIzVjumT86I7m5+HOtxRnOJ0TbEV11fmJ0RHAhSV N5c2tYi1qwo300sjkDaboOZt1fN2u99vfaPrucw8g9mmooyUwgDOps1s72W7Qd0kutlA ndQQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.143.140 with SMTP id v12mr23222377vcu.95.1373589619047; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.55.70 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7A5DE71A-3FF4-4AC5-BC85-2C31EB81985F@cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <7A5DE71A-3FF4-4AC5-BC85-2C31EB81985F@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:40:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlAvJ8gv/F9RlKOIpWpo9ZVMeu5QCXCRNQNk1OT+0ZsR/WtycfcxQdNpiYbkvdrKJDAVl0H Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:40:20 -0000 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) wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson >> 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 From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 11 20:16:50 2013 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local In-Reply-To: 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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" 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) >wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" >>wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson >>> 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 From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Jul 11 21:31:12 2013 Return-Path: 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 055DA21F9A04 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:31:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.443, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 tZOeiDwfw93n for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x233.google.com (mail-vc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF1821F99EB for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hz11so7362595vcb.38 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:31:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=emtpkcz2vIvZRF4BLohHiA+ZyL+ZMU5llqfhdU9FrsI=; b=118p2hbh4+FQiV5stA3ND/stm3ucRc0egl6XJ+JbjvrrPxzml4vhCKo5bsDhuVPUsx dJkBpfZ1NrHDg+1mcoFwRnhiF93fjkZUNtSdsp9XvDTe8IKYH3nKsZ2nt8uox41ztDbY TDPdY1NDMoUwN633Af/Ftb23Q3ZPEaoTpaXII= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=emtpkcz2vIvZRF4BLohHiA+ZyL+ZMU5llqfhdU9FrsI=; b=k3aWNpgM4NO9LsJO1FFJYkIpY3Id17BicW+IUKHcMUgs65jWGH9k6nm4VhCAwEprIO U9mhRJo/ZKRJSVgQwOrZZFid3SJue08k4O1pWelIUVT1IIWI3Pa2XjLMoWPJ5ytxzUUt O/9Dw/7AiszQG3v/GkgEBAKErBVVq7YL/3YA4er9EsggtUe31VvgbXGwRnhEgop8ssKJ rKlSZhqBSqnKqynDIwAq9QXkm7ugP1kcp4oAetxfwWqzzoVYFSn+6BhRhlSR7POp6Uax 82G4svZGDcoMZ1Y9KyqvSZmDpZ3dBdf5fb5EeY8+thFDFSxJCQevdSiUjXoBtjt+jq+9 Ik3Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.143.140 with SMTP id v12mr23520912vcu.95.1373603467774; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.55.70 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:31:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:31:07 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b342f44c25acf04e148fa5e X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnhtj3WsoCEs+GxGmAah3SOUblENPPKex6oyMfBALl/xD3CY7H3sehybQzBMxaMSXxqAMR Cc: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:31:12 -0000 --047d7b342f44c25acf04e148fa5e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Don, The IETF has already documented a solution in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889 (using /128 prefixes) I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago: http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf Regards Ulrich On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote: > 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" > > 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) > > > >wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" > > > >>wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson > >>> > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > --047d7b342f44c25acf04e148fa5e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Don,

The IETF has already documented a solution in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5= 889=A0
(using /128 prefixes)

I wrote a wh= ole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago:=

Re= gards
Ulrich

=

On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote:
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<= br> 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" <ulric= h@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:<= br> >>>>
>>>>> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scop= es defines
>>>>>scope
>>>>> 0x03 as:
>>>>
>>>>> 3 =A0Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local s= cope, 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 me= ans.
>>>> I am concerned about the word "Network"... which= could mean anything
>>>>to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet&qu= ot;, because the intent
>>>>is that
>>>> it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is usi= ng. =A0I
>>>>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


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
--047d7b342f44c25acf04e148fa5e-- From johui@cisco.com Thu Jul 11 21:51:27 2013 Return-Path: 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 C6DF121F9CE3 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.714 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 VhPqCD4LxweJ for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0E621F9CC2 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9354; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373604683; x=1374814283; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=T6xPbX0jDb8TZnqeJDhdkxPWSBwMb1pzE9lSL3Yqn48=; b=Nhq4uv66kkQuO5o2WY+xes0lYSN8pOBpvSQ2OgvGxTmRW9W5l3A7F6LB X8ZwzSZO8akg123hahd9jNuugh3TgStG9LZ2P8cnX+H5R6Zuq+AmnI6vD u+meQm2KWpUGmydoV2rDpKoSY7Y+4MOf6LHeDmsbFnorEqB+8TxLBl1tw g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYFAGCK31GtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABagwY0T4QktHqIMoEHFnSCIwEBAQICAQEBZAcLEAIBCBgKHQcnCxQRAgQOBQgTh3QMtxMDBgGPKS0EB4MJbAOIb5AXkCSDEYIo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,650,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217";a="233695062" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2013 04:51:20 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6C4pKvd011339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:51:20 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.56]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:51:20 -0500 From: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" To: Ulrich Herberg Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Thread-Index: AQHOfrtzvRsglLn1TEGc7XI6qmBNyQ== Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:51:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.79.53] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF2794C0CDxmbrcdx04ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:51:28 -0000 --_000_B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF2794C0CDxmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The issue at hand is defining a new multicast scope. Any multicast scope g= reater than link-local covers multiple links by definition. Or are you simply saying that you disagree with Michael's suggestion and wo= uld prefer a name other than "subnet"? -- Jonathan Hui On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg > wrote: Hi Don, The IETF has already documented a solution in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rf= c5889 (using /128 prefixes) I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago: http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf Regards Ulrich On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote: 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" > wr= ote: >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) > >wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" > >>wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson >>> > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 --_000_B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF2794C0CDxmbrcdx04ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <62DC6ED32E49144280A37E9592A84A0D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The issue at hand is defining a new multicast scope.  Any multica= st scope greater than link-local covers multiple links by definition.

Or are you simply saying that you disagree with Michael's suggestion a= nd would prefer a name other than "subnet"?

--
Jonathan Hui

On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:

Hi Don,

The IETF has already documented a solution in http://tools.ietf.org/html/r= fc5889 
(usi= ng /128 prefixes)

I w= rote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago:

Regards
Ulrich
On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote:
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<= br> 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" <ulr= ich@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-scop= es defines
>>>>>scope
>>>>> 0x03 as:
>>>>
>>>>> 3  Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Loca= l 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 me= ans.
>>>> 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 usi= ng.  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


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Rol= l@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

--_000_B50D0F163D52B74DA572DD345D5044AF2794C0CDxmbrcdx04ciscoc_-- From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Jul 11 22:06:19 2013 Return-Path: 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 B07AB21F84D4 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.929 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 cXooHKzwZY3q for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x22c.google.com (mail-vc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B838521F8BB7 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id ib11so7438891vcb.17 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:05:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YAYoOOpiVXYF7AJdmm3PVV27jtWpfgLW96h0s4X+gzw=; b=wWw4r2efNwPv6atcBQIexxql0TtiMlbUbN+GLHYXn6QrFzIW53z5xfPE9BuAOy1qaV Kik2rvk2GdH0Pef999m9t+z5OABbh1iwgI8sH3945wqzIjqxD/12PacbWH8ObF+r8d+7 ValJr7a6TUW/JVjZE4A/eiggBccS+MJNzybzY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=YAYoOOpiVXYF7AJdmm3PVV27jtWpfgLW96h0s4X+gzw=; b=YSuwzPznxX50ObPRWoWNBLU8/qMQi3EUSU7FpCqGrzJTWKRHADdn+MYA/EhZzHSWNh 6zI0bj2jC5K/wjRYELw5qMk2fPWf/hCLtcO91375WYMIuftTAWkxnWbIKVN1fB/MWpFh AxL7gsE5yHP3N0NlBvH57baeJHTBnt0rsCTBVzlnMQh5WdCkQN8JGZAYzYl6Rb/ud9/2 fPLYNYDRpmxVBUs0KAG+js0gZQ1BMA5mOgV3MKJ0gpb2t893P6e4q2V6jvOtOSbFv7DI EOCC0zORN9Zg57VPZ8UkjdxEA/c1HR2NZwNTX+4wkEGdMFBd3asyO4HFGRFFu+TFRiuC luDw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.68.144 with SMTP id v16mr23703042vci.76.1373605558008; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.55.70 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:05:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:05:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "Jonathan Hui (johui)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQniM5kxEPRKxen2WDyMx+wltVv+8gZd4S3/kKYNbfGnoCiyHVxRj2RS8pZMJis9W/zVi5xz Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 05:06:19 -0000 Jonathan, On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Jonathan Hui (johui) wrote: > > The issue at hand is defining a new multicast scope. Any multicast scope > greater than link-local covers multiple links by definition. > > Or are you simply saying that you disagree with Michael's suggestion and > would prefer a name other than "subnet"? Yes, that is what I am saying. That said, I understand Michael's concern about the word "network" (but have no better proposal so far). Best regards Ulrich > On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > > Hi Don, > > The IETF has already documented a solution in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889 > (using /128 prefixes) > > I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago: > http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf > > Regards > Ulrich > > > > On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote: >> >> 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" 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) >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson >> >>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > From mariainesrobles@googlemail.com Thu Jul 11 23:01:19 2013 Return-Path: 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 89DEF21F9702 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:01:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 ktENalhgtAA7 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-x234.google.com (mail-vc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923B721F9703 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id gf11so7430276vcb.11 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:01:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zpHVESpldR6qqX6F4hVnaCG7OcrCkl3bB67YqePkmY0=; b=CXCqX93W6qx+FMCAUzG5FFDVRAlSkuuCX3R7KPtEdlgzDzqGU4xHw+mCDpAo0bAirS VOXdc3A7SNDjJEqOvfP1E/ag8HoHwd738Ql6YgrWMEqdk0fjphGKI8+p6/xP/zxltqDf Lxcf22AoKZ3mYxyAyKoFVrVSy32UuKeN5ZcaA/sRzjjeOcnP/gosdI3VDPfAv6YDPkcO 7bh07nSStgAoxLTAVbyuoEfrzjigLbM8vYXFF+bZXIMkGeAOSCL6mxrG0dxGsKxr/68j Qwl5HjY0jlBs8fwa1n19ximA5N+tgNO/+kV8xzJhEur7Ks3p2/UrXNueZA3bqyU5Dsqf oIbw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.18.196 with SMTP id y4mr12058625vdd.51.1373608874490; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.6.68 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:01:14 -0300 Message-ID: From: Ines Robles To: antoniocojr@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec50409b606411c04e14a3d83 Cc: roll@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 06:01:19 -0000 --bcaec50409b606411c04e14a3d83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Thank you very much for this draft, Just some comments, please correct If I am wrong: * Due to the doc talk about energy I think should be appropriated define energy in terminology (section 1.1), in draft-ietf-eman-framework-08 the energy is defined as: "Energy: That which does work or is capable of doing work.As used by electric utilities, it is generally a reference to electrical energy and is measured inkilowatt hours (kWh).Reference: [IEEE100] NOTES1. Energy is the capacity of a system to produce external activity or perform work [ISO50001]" * To a better understanding I think should be appropriated mention into brackets some energy parameters when energy cost is defined in section 1.1. draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-05 define some parameters in Energy Table and Energy ParametersTable. * In section 3.1.1 the field "Energy Cost" in 9 bits I think should be changed by "E_E " (estimated energy) in 8 bits, * [RFC6551] is duplicated in Informative References Section Thanks and Regards, Ines Robles. 2013/7/11 > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt > (Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Junior) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:13:02 -0300 > From: Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Junior > To: roll@ietf.org > Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt > Message-ID: > < > CAMttjn0L0SObx3-JaQBU_qS59bV1CD3kYGek3qHUkdK5tpdA6A@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear All, > > We have submitted the draft (draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00). > > We are working on implementing the energy-aware metrics on RPL > implementations such as SimpleRPL, ContikiRPL or TinyRPL. > > We appreciate your comments, > > BR, > -- > Antonio C. Oliveira Junior, PhD Student Computer Science > MAP-i Doctoral Programme (www.map.edu.pt/i) > Researcher at SITILabs (http://siti.ulusofona.pt/) > > > --bcaec50409b606411c04e14a3d83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Thank you very much for this draft,=A0
Just some comments, please correct If I am wrong:
* Due to the doc talk about energy I think should be appropriat= ed define energy in terminology (section 1.1), in draft-ietf-eman-framework= -08 the energy is defined as: "Energy: That which does work or is capa= ble of doing work.As used by electric utilities, it is generally a referenc= e to electrical energy and is measured inkilowatt hours (kWh).Reference: [I= EEE100] NOTES1. Energy is the capacity of a system to produce external acti= vity or perform work [ISO50001]"=A0

* To a better understanding I think should be appropria= ted mention into brackets some energy parameters when energy cost is define= d in section 1.1.=A0draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-05 define some pa= rameters in=A0Energy Table and=A0Energy ParametersTable.

* In section 3.1.1 the field "Energy Cost" in 9 bits I= think should be changed by "E_E " (estimated energy) in 8 bits,= =A0

*=A0[RFC6551] is duplicated in Informative References Section=

Thanks and Regards,

Ines Robles.=

2013/7/11 <roll-request@ietf.org&g= t;

Today's Topics:

=A0 =A01. Fwd: New Version Notification for
=A0 =A0 =A0 draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt
=A0 =A0 =A0 (Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Junior)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:13:02 -0300
From: Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Junior <antoniocojr@gmail.com>
To: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00.txt
Message-ID:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <CAMttjn0L0SObx3-JaQBU_qS59bV1CD3kYGek3qHUkdK= 5tpdA6A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"

Dear All,

We have submitted the draft (draft-ajunior-roll-energy-awareness-00).

We are working on implementing the energy-aware metrics on RPL
implementations such as SimpleRPL, ContikiRPL or TinyRPL.

We appreciate your comments,

BR,
--
Antonio C. Oliveira Junior, PhD Student Computer Science
MAP-i Doctoral Programme (www.map.edu.pt/i)
Researcher at SITILabs (http://siti.ulusofona.pt/)



--bcaec50409b606411c04e14a3d83-- From rdroms@cisco.com Thu Jul 11 17:05:35 2013 Return-Path: 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 7C73621E808A for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:05:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 TE1YQnCG2Pbd for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809E521E805F for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:05:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1074; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373587530; x=1374797130; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xtlnQQE6b7ZORdllueNflSsg5nqJq6Wv9UhSyTsq84g=; b=BkIe0SKgWvzeobZZ7+xJ5J8BdLqlRbcLvbytrqpraGybsI48fr3FJtLX 1Fs3qs5L+J/4eHriusb+XleIEo1t7u292dkhb5v83WoFkpOg5gRy3dOjH A2y70+BMFHhLkorLKstQzYS+mcMzBA3XCJc2yL8KIfrIKHV4LDXIPYzLL Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAElH31GtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwY0wiWBBxZ0giMBAQEDATotEgULAgEIGB4QMiUCBA4FiAkGDLdqjy4zB4MJbAOXXIEqkCSDEQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,648,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="233832923" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2013 00:05:14 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6C05Eao018322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:05:14 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.239]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:05:14 -0500 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: Ulrich Herberg Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Thread-Index: AQHOfnvAE0hdpuPffU2KL5nISCt1AplgYx0A///G4sU= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:05:13 +0000 Message-ID: <7A5DE71A-3FF4-4AC5-BC85-2C31EB81985F@cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:41:10 -0700 Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:05:35 -0000 On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: >>=20 >>> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines scope >>> 0x03 as: >>=20 >>> 3 Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defined >>> automatically from the network topology >>=20 >>> To be confirmed: will this definition suffice for MPL? >>=20 >> I think it is sufficient, because we understand what it means. >> I am concerned about the word "Network"... which could mean anything to = anyone. >>=20 >> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because the intent is t= hat >> it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is using. I think t= hat >> is the term that is used in RFC4291. >=20 >=20 > 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 >=20 > Regards > Ulrich From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jul 12 09:11:45 2013 Return-Path: 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 83E4821F9D2A for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.318 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.318 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 lV-YXvQm0Vgl for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm3-vm5.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm3-vm5.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.121]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A925821F9D0A for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.39.60.174] by nm3.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2013 16:11:40 -0000 Received: from [67.195.22.119] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2013 16:11:40 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp114.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jul 2013 16:11:40 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1373645500; bh=JgBVfXPpphy9O5tLPReM991i04r2Q7JeGn4GrYbO7q8=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type; b=EhF7WvIDexy0HgNLt9R64R7t+yRrL3s+qkAFWBd+EsMeXO0jbtk/2WM2V/FOGMrdNQuGIbtBx1c0wCb+hHIkjUsWs3iiyqnYkGK2ccdAY7iqZq0tFkKKTSUje0ghaaO6F0fLP0yWzcoiQbIEcgfOb/GaPTOxRwKyJeamwtr7M/A= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 320786.71936.bm@smtp114.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: wggEKPwVM1msx8mPYF7z5y2c3zSf9edJLG5JIZVqbFi79lS EjbfXiTwFMw7uiKxHNI2p9GfsNHeuvMBP8A.FbfH367.YhIoQq99FwoR.3sV AgRA4ibYSs3eFEth043N2U8rJ2.0X5ju0QIUqe2iPPAbpMe9HDTG195BRGFT Gf9PdB.znYEZyw8f22TlN8rhpIjhY.VGWMn6EYAZT1HnpOEfam7AGOJnGurc jBQs8H03pO6AsLUGrMgsglvNoDAmw1.9KCMxy.xQh.Br6Ovuub7Un4om4vEe PDMck1hBA6gakd9dP88Y67SM6cSP6Xhprjh13qEVQIBr2G4QF3Uw2csh9S2b C_kQtqmo6PN2RpcXUNO6IR0_ob3WwCU_uT1Zk0iik5gbBdJ70utgnpCfyLRr SlF9IDiP_syfl9Z9u7qyg1KR.cm4L8PqypT8Kunar8UpTrwV77OIE7M_89rf 5CLHN4IgLtxGbewm1MPvU_QkeUVffFLdUXSk3hFxT6Av080_vl38P8XOlsLF ieXb.GaBoy_F7T4vjMdpMnunymlDXEpJrT1a1VpY_M7cttAD8fg-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.1.1.129] (d.sturek@66.27.60.174 with login) by smtp114.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2013 09:11:39 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:11:36 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3456465098_8221" Cc: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:11:45 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3456465098_8221 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ulrich, I don't think the Trickle Multicast draft would be too different even if a /128 was used instead of the "all MPL forwarders"=8A=8A Don From: Ulrich Herberg Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:31 PM To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Cc: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Hi Don, The IETF has already documented a solution in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889 (using /128 prefixes) I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago: http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf Regards Ulrich On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Ulrich, >=20 > I think the multi-link subnet is an unfortunate side effect of route over > mesh protocols. >=20 > I would be interested in hearing of any solution around this since we (th= e > folks implementing ZigBee IP) seemed to have to go through a lot of > trouble over multi-link subnets..... >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 > On 7/11/13 5:40 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" = > > wrote: >=20 >> >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) > > >> >wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" >> > >>> >>wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defin= es >>>>>> >>>>>scope >>>>>> >>>>> 0x03 as: >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 3 Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defi= ned >>>>>> >>>>> 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 anyt= hing >>>>> >>>>to anyone. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because the int= ent >>>>> >>>>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 ide= a: >>>> >>> 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 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 --B_3456465098_8221 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ulrich,

<= /div>
I don't think the Trickle Multicast draft would be too different e= ven if a /128 was used instead of the "all MPL forwarders"……

Don


From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
Reply-T= o: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:31 PM
To: = Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc: = "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.c= om>
Subject: Re: [Roll] tri= ckle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local

Hi Don,

The IETF has already documented a solution in= http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889&nbs= p;
(using /128 prefixes)

<= font face=3D".HelveticaNeueUI">I wrote a whol= e chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago:

Regards<= /div>
Ulrich



On Thursday,= July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote:
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<= br> 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.nam= e>
>>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-scop= es defines
>>>>>scope
>>>>> 0x03 as:
>>>>
>>>>> 3  Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Loca= l 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 me= ans.
>>>> I am concerned about the word "Network"... which could mea= n anything
>>>>to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because t= he intent
>>>>is that
>>>> it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is usi= ng.  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:
>>> h= ttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4903
>>
>> That decision has already been made and is carried through many >>protocols..
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ulrich
>_______________________________________________
>Roll mailing list
>Rol= l@ietf.org
>ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
_______________________________________________ Roll mailing list Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/roll --B_3456465098_8221-- From ulrich@herberg.name Fri Jul 12 09:32:47 2013 Return-Path: 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 81B8821F9E71 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.934 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 occCxJw8b-vj for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x22e.google.com (mail-vb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE3821F9E5B for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 10so1720813vbe.33 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UnJgJs97Rs5oVSRMfz6UVVc1u/5glIedlKZgS+/gTGc=; b=tcZUyAiZu7Ma34vjV+vl11Zk07UoqowxW2gW72cQJud6b8M9sq5tkZWvRwfrYjTKxp YnpnPb1S/lsP7+ZBJ+ZTnJqstcYdrctDPF0lHALRggi8YLZWWcTlb53ugAIcn+Ts9KyC 4X0MhoGNvOaoVSPCxJV6e1TItVFRYjIKTjt14= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=UnJgJs97Rs5oVSRMfz6UVVc1u/5glIedlKZgS+/gTGc=; b=DFx6GRtEMbndEKYrJifgjQchwfOy5eS3lgxpXjmKZMNTP/mTKtLKoQ3+6GLLS7LrLu besgSKB2mCXqK72uRQF7PUW1lSxe9JBVq2+4awr6VR5tUYVVkCS8h/KWNVya9Mmqcq56 ANtG8CTshmBQ/OkjIVyL35fzN1oq4n+RzN084tOQlwZiLGZEI6txM4YJ/X4lBptdmw9o XJnhM9PR1DPsIVQIsXRM2nE66uNgEqDG6f1VfRmckKJSjp6vY/byZuyWS9+V0XTkJvGq axPjTJbl/s6NaA0a6fvnjUHWCzKPwDTqjjLrsw9isFQbmbsLraAJNQuHjYht4HPzFGvV f16w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.248.40 with SMTP id yj8mr24895309vec.40.1373646763849; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.55.70 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:32:43 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk16G6FokADWraAs370RDtzOyQwLBv2eLtk/ovixYeCmJhrqrQ2sMdKOfJkjYyRvFUTwXiL Cc: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:32:47 -0000 Hi Don, My comment was more regarding multi-link subnets (and usage of the term "subnet" as multicast scope). All the issues mentioned in RFC4903 disappear when using host prefixes. Best regards Ulrich On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Ulrich, > > I don't think the Trickle Multicast draft would be too different even if = a > /128 was used instead of the "all MPL forwarders"=85=85 > > Don > > > From: Ulrich Herberg > Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks > Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:31 PM > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks > Cc: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" > Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - > subnet-local > > Hi Don, > > The IETF has already documented a solution in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889 > (using /128 prefixes) > > I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago: > http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf > > Regards > Ulrich > > > > On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote: >> >> Hi Ulrich, >> >> I think the multi-link subnet is an unfortunate side effect of route ove= r >> mesh protocols. >> >> I would be interested in hearing of any solution around this since we (t= he >> 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" 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) >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson >> >>> 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 anythin= g >> >>>>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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Jul 12 14:24:37 2013 Return-Path: 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 3ED9121F9F12 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, 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 dmdl1H3Hb5iH for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B931721F9A71 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1611120170; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C031B63A5E; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECD063732; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:23:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <082.734dd1779880d549745a9362f870ba4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.eb8cd06a193daa93167f1567d59337cc@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.734dd1779880d549745a9362f870ba4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: johui@cisco.com, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: [Roll] #129: - Proactive and Reactive Forwarding should be mutually exclusive within the same MPL Domain? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:24:37 -0000 --=-=-= roll issue tracker wrote: > applies to an entire MPL Domain, can PROACTIVE_FORWARDING by changed > dynamically during the lifetime of a MPL domain or is it a static > parameter? Given that section 5 says: The mechanism for setting the Trickle Parameters is not specified within this document. and 5.4 says: The mechanism for setting the MPL Forwarder Parameters is not specified within this document. I claim that there is no way to dynamically change this parameter in a standard way. I don't think that any aspect part of Trickle or RPL deals with what happens if the magic numbers change. I agree with the observation that a mote/network that is in reactive forwarding mode should not be prohibited from being proactive. The opposite is not the case: a network in proactive mode might completely lack the code path to do reactive forwarding. I suggest that either: 1) reactive forwarding be made the default (5.4 says the opposite) 2) support for REACTIVE FORWARDING be a MUST (I don't see anything that says that that this isn't the case. Lack of a MAY NOT does not always mean it's a MUST) -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUeBzuoqHRg3pndX9AQK2gwP/VfyuKLAmw1CwlplPKfC89WfqA+t9yJNV I8wlWJMVEKAbmQUBDOMEHtBE7t+6/QHVYnU3J0lO4LhHr0ihnwJ6iKarqyBNBKWT +R7SC2aksyTOW3e8FZ2Dd4ZXPjifvUalCt754J8ygZXj3Y1e7e7x0HbEX2iRWpAb 3yj4DFu3XwY= =cExV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From stokcons@xs4all.nl Mon Jul 15 00:30:16 2013 Return-Path: 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 A1E9C21F999B for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:30:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] 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 BWFLH+GseWmc for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BA121F83EF for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube10.xs4all.net [194.109.20.208]) by smtp-vbr7.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6F7RUrP096654 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:27:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-56-114.w86-202.abo.wanadoo.fr ([86.202.71.114]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:27:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:27:30 +0200 From: peter van der Stok To: Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <25475.1373664189@sandelman.ca> References: <067.eb8cd06a193daa93167f1567d59337cc@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.734dd1779880d549745a9362f870ba4b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <25475.1373664189@sandelman.ca> Message-ID: <57b18f5b86b9037249e402647839b375@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (kV2tZ0zO9rSY7rPGmwOPo2j1jL8/ZRpa) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [Roll] =?utf-8?q?=23129=3A_-_Proactive_and_Reactive_Forwarding_sh?= =?utf-8?q?ould_be_mutually_exclusive_within_the_same_MPL_Domain=3F?= X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:30:17 -0000 I support 2) One of the issues raised by Kerry was if reactive and proactive can be active on the same node at the same time. I would say yes. My suggestion: Proactive and reactive are NOT mutually exclusive. Peter Michael Richardson schreef op 2013-07-12 23:23: > roll issue tracker wrote: > > applies to an entire MPL Domain, can PROACTIVE_FORWARDING by > changed > > dynamically during the lifetime of a MPL domain or is it a > static > > parameter? > > Given that section 5 says: > The mechanism for setting the Trickle Parameters is not > specified within this document. > > and 5.4 says: > The mechanism > for setting the MPL Forwarder Parameters is not specified within > this > document. > > I claim that there is no way to dynamically change this parameter in a > standard way. I don't think that any aspect part of Trickle or RPL > deals > with what happens if the magic numbers change. > > I agree with the observation that a mote/network that is in reactive > forwarding > mode should not be prohibited from being proactive. > > The opposite is not the case: a network in proactive mode might > completely > lack the code path to do reactive forwarding. > > I suggest that either: > 1) reactive forwarding be made the default (5.4 says the opposite) > 2) support for REACTIVE FORWARDING be a MUST > (I don't see anything that says that that this isn't the case. Lack > of > a MAY NOT does not always mean it's a MUST) > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network > architect [ > ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on > rails [ > > > > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From rdroms@cisco.com Mon Jul 15 03:55:46 2013 Return-Path: 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 C17DC11E80E2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:55:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 Id3QXYed8tcy for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B58211E80D9 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:55:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1587; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373885742; x=1375095342; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=1qcE67AOgFiuFGQaDkPf/cqALWkAhViXMZ52Ek/7O0U=; b=PnReeMeJWHByPh9T1OMqaQaTCsvwzrS+1g4ByNcrq83ybnWuRyd6mWP1 +CvqijKT/jf5Tu53SFdhhjv6zVCNNSwZKFQemDivqTYjbE56e9j5tV2JN TdgFea3aqbHNeor+IIHPg8XOWFyri0ijOVxJMBCrhf7h9bvPGfB7zmPAA w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAGHU41GtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagwY0T8FQgQ8WdIIjAQEBAwEBAQE3NBsCAQgiFBAnCyUCBBMIiAIGDLUljzECOIMLbQOpKYMSgig X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,668,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="234959010" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2013 10:55:41 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6FAtfgj009101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:55:41 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.239]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 05:55:41 -0500 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Thread-Index: AQHOfnvAE0hdpuPffU2KL5nISCt1Apll6o6A Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:55:40 +0000 Message-ID: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.243.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <27BACBF94F43E74E83CD46EC13AF5FA5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:55:46 -0000 (BCC: 6man mailing list, which is where this document is intended to become= a work item) On Jul 11, 2013, at 10:14 PM 7/11/13, Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 >> The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines scope >> 0x03 as: >=20 >> 3 Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defined >> automatically from the network topology >=20 >> To be confirmed: will this definition suffice for MPL? >=20 > I think it is sufficient, because we understand what it means. > I am concerned about the word "Network"... which could mean anything to a= nyone. >=20 > I'd think that the right word would be "subnet", because the intent is th= at > it is for the entire /64 or whatever it is that one is using. I think th= at > is the term that is used in RFC4291. "subnet" implies that this multicast scope must derive from the address ass= ignment topology. The first (and only) use case is derived from the /64 pr= efix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of scope 0x03? - Ralph >=20 > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh netwo= rks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network archite= ct [ > ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails= [ >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Mon Jul 15 09:43:37 2013 Return-Path: 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 36EBA11E8108 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:43:37 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 2OiptPRKcGTa for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7208D11E80AD for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B6620192 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 767D663A88; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676C763732 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:42:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:43:37 -0000 --=-=-= Ralph Droms (rdroms) 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. > "subnet" implies that this multicast scope must derive from the address > assignment topology. The first (and only) use case is derived from the > /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of scope > 0x03? I think so. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUeQmaIqHRg3pndX9AQJHegP/Q41Wl8/D/kHrnukiBvJ8V1EjERmk7Jf9 g0veJ9x9YQMdortuMloo2cWusC4LcWpzMKMTHZ+TK33dOMNiEK70bPYjwjhuVy8o mZzj2uFRbMi/wFgJ/HnSiV6Jvyz76up/vqiDG4x3QwUvBjkE3PBTvWAPUcW9gZjG C/7JjQ6emL4= =r5Yv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From pthubert@cisco.com Tue Jul 16 05:41:54 2013 Return-Path: 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 12C9211E80E0 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 05:41:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.182 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.417, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 xPVlWIAwnvxB for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 05:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873D111E80D7 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 05:41:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=309; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373978508; x=1375188108; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=bcAMUydoP+2iivfv8Lyg0V7iL34tT9YP2lR8GxSwz34=; b=eu0KyCXxNfHUvcEwO40O7q9a+jlOubtMkgF+6eDzvVLUdr9vzU7VP448 MB1Z5sAjo+qF6Lz0Y2sshl99JUJtUX2i5NGad7Bbbkfs1xNukCJ36CEG2 DyJKNJYg81ib1KUABMQCNtytzD58QcE4voKfHTNEBDXal2UBI4FylzBIj 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAHg+5VGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagwaBA8FdgQ4WdIIjAQEBAwE6TwIBCCIUEDIlAgQbiAIGtimPLjiDDG0DqSmDEoIo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,676,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="235389612" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2013 12:41:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6GCfl8N008233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:41:47 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.35]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:41:47 -0500 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Thread-Index: AQHOgXp4ATUt0dxA8ESdq2VQZ56BBZlnP+0w Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:41:47 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:41:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.49.80.26] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:41:54 -0000 Hi: =20 >> "subnet" implies that this multicast scope must derive from the addr= ess >> assignment topology. The first (and only) use case is derived from = the >> /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of scope >> 0x03? > I think so. Same here. Pascal From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Tue Jul 16 15:59:52 2013 Return-Path: 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 06BC821F8F78 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 YOeZ0hv3Zn05 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAFA21F8F29 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w56so1135313wes.25 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=ZGTZlmB4zoL9XvBnHW7dywQuT+Y6hMiDLcCTvmi9fgI=; b=hdjuKKgOb9f7mhp98dd/XmKavrbYm6xPUnDEpe/wCAhhY2u6Vdd9/XtIASjfgxwxFj zPHNtfnrLtR3NpWz62IzcIc2JWAjJ6bunYq+9+BqUQlVFMAvRu6c8Rx9cAF/sZEQL4I5 uCm83IXLfCDuOq2yQWfAAhqvuCJD1dxIT19quraOkqDzzM4mAdbJr7v03MabbVUMg/sy k+J2xW67XGjy3GRWG4YmYKnEAw3tSqxuuWmKe4El9QCFgj4YiNSkCQp6rFALJJNAzesc C4Blgq3nW++RXpFjjlFyvOlgWNArQqFVlq2nP58pgWWg+rB8s2vVqmldIyHcNyi9lkwE 83lw== X-Received: by 10.194.19.130 with SMTP id f2mr2837242wje.22.1374015590422; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.172.185.236] ([212.183.128.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb2sm31079700wic.4.2013.07.16.15.59.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:59:49 -0700 (PDT) References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329) From: Ralph Droms Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:59:44 +0100 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:59:52 -0000 This draft is on the 6man agenda for Berlin. I expect the discussion will b= e taken up there. In my opinion, the multicast scope should not be tied, thought the words in t= he description of the scope, to the address assignment architecture. - Ralph On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:41 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: > Hi: >=20 >>> "subnet" implies that this multicast scope must derive from the address >>> assignment topology. The first (and only) use case is derived from the >>> /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of scope >>> 0x03? >=20 >> I think so. >=20 > Same here. >=20 > Pascal > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Jul 17 11:34:44 2013 Return-Path: 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 47F6021F9A1C; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:34:44 -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 7RgAB9d6YFud; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AED921F99C3; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:3a60:77ff:fe38:e647]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685012017C; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AD2AC63A7C; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996CB63732; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:32:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:34:44 -0000 --=-=-= Ralph Droms wrote: > This draft is on the 6man agenda for Berlin. I expect the discussion > will be taken up there. > In my opinion, the multicast scope should not be tied, thought the > words in the description of the scope, to the address assignment > architecture. Do you have a specific use case that you are thinking of? How can it be tied to the subnet, and yet not be related to the address assignment architecture? Can you suggest another definition? -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUebjVYqHRg3pndX9AQIgdwQAxptNIsfjPm3iKNiuwiGadPVrhzDsDS7a 1kHQLxIpsk3tjl9aQ5b965AuceXeZtrQqV5y42TtFWp3TWu18dWwMMWEfkwE75ir s2YmL2WQSLQ6QE1/lZZ3YexVnGDnON4kRtgXpnbG/nQNeBJc384gIx54Z4xh1rgM sx+JBLPNRBE= =jUDQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Wed Jul 17 18:44:57 2013 Return-Path: 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 F319D21F9AFE for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:44:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 WX5ibBILYTp9 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F0921F9AD6 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id rl6so2621910pac.1 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:44:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hUYWH+t462bQ4YR7fHhuc6nb5zJ3dctFpsOOVOtfZjI=; b=NzHupWpzse1SuBLt8mKSwNbVj2xJgGCj8hijovrDLWBVQb/BfeVkTK9p2StIfiAATk JmCoBy1WnWJafWfHBPFfqbBglOxT3yp/tHibts1TzgjuGSFDqQYhvXsuBWfarej+GGNj ibcKEe+wPfVUN9QtBL/qqLKB/UTxWZRpcTYNNdmPR5q5zQRW6bjhWDLTL+/VVQG6/bBQ 7HevJTLHuxxXyZFNLD4ot+d8Hof33A0k9LTVoUDq1csXYiDRA759AiaqGWOYqqCY+l8x HfI8u7uDOK0tOVJGCTSqsMwNOkJoIFjacESi83b0aueD1DiIqSrqKQwcgmOgFYntBgtZ GF+g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.148.41 with SMTP id tp9mr10822410pab.40.1374111895484; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.250.133 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:44:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 03:44:55 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 01:44:57 -0000 On 7/12/13, Jonathan Hui (johui) wrote: > > The issue at hand is defining a new multicast scope. Any multicast scope > greater than link-local covers multiple links by definition. > > Or are you simply saying that you disagree with Michael's suggestion and > would prefer a name other than "subnet"? I prefer using *sub-cluster* or *net-cluster* for MPL purposes. AB > > -- > Jonathan Hui > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Ulrich Herberg > > wrote: > > Hi Don, > > The IETF has already documented a solution in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889 > (using /128 prefixes) > > I wrote a whole chapter on that issue in my Ph.D. Thesis a few years ago: > http://herberg.name/downloads/pubs/thesis.pdf > > Regards > Ulrich > > > > On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Don Sturek wrote: > 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" > > 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) >> > >>wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Ulrich Herberg" >>> > >>>wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Michael Richardson >>>> > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > From d.sturek@att.net Mon Jul 22 07:13:07 2013 Return-Path: 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 6BA2511E8122 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:13:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.424 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, 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 55TkZdt03693 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm20-vm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm20-vm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C4C11E8110 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.196.81.159] by nm20.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jul 2013 14:12:56 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.183] by tm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jul 2013 14:12:56 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jul 2013 14:12:56 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374502376; bh=6fFJe2NnrwXaYKXy+8Upv70nmk2Tw/W1IKOY/3CROKo=; 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=LOroELuTwUFl1RXvVy1NaK83qq2uw04uB0OHDa0a6ws1USqhYAiyvyiWtNXadc0RaNSy/odymhvH5ZVM/58LybqDiHluKlqP0F+PRefbGLHCe0sfvgsM/fTxMfs0I/DOmQcINqZ/C7+o5Ou2468z4OrzQaMwXoUpRFam5XGOdPw= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 731692.96816.bm@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: zHQqnggVM1lKNO65YRbSIPoldFLMR5Uovp85s.qLDrNU32_ J5DxwmP7KrhZ8fCDoQkxRm48TQ0LmBsA38qQXXOaDrstb1xmem7xu4u1GOvR Uw9z_rZ1AYP3dGQd8bUKAHpZc4pU09C5Sj9mmAXA1FJhwcfTXPburyRKbe5s qmMyw3TwT_qx04aah.yBiBFcw0L87IPihGrzZjGbANEak8_wUL3DZFpTWLVH bwHRcAGINU..BJMoY.IjO7aVAfc2K6FQso82HMaPmLjgnyucN5evi._xioIo GiK8MuEL7bmjBg3f0oHwVdy0V12GLZoFYAQGdqbejXQs6ds4l345bS37Lq57 ECr9VsTqZmUmQ.CFVugV9eAkwu4TrDawBueWLz5iVHg7DYDWmr1JL8pPcuYn bDppKVk.0SoUrlj07QEUufLOjlQXELH_8fotudRpqfl_0ewuuY4UvcK3xzas wfGH5LpopZ6.GXR8dey2JMNfc32ZT9myVfT3rhgaaGWLNGyNHhEtok6PP5R. pDzvVIYFF.20eBgWRUtc- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@67.124.200.231 with login) by smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2013 14:12:56 +0000 UTC User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:05:48 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: "Eggert, Lars" , "core@ietf.org" , "roll@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [core] Fwd: IETF Mentor Program In-Reply-To: <285EAD53-1801-461E-813F-D0C250DDE03E@netapp.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Roll] [core] Fwd: IETF Mentor Program X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:13:07 -0000 Hi Lars, My name is Don Sturek and I would be interested in signing up as a mentor. I spent a good deal of time working in the IETF on a variety of drafts around IoT as part of ZigBee IP (plus added drafts to 6MAN which formed part of the problem statement for Homenet and also participated in a barBOF in Stockholm which provided some requirements for Core.....) Don On 7/22/13 6:51 AM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: >Hi, > >I'm one of the folks matching up mentors and newcomers. We have a few >newcomers that are interested in IoT, but VERY few IoT folks volunteering >to be mentors. Please step up! And soon! > >Lars > >Begin forwarded message: > >> From: IETF Chair >> Subject: IETF Mentor Program >> Date: July 1, 2013 21:39:36 GMT+02:00 >> To: IETF Announcement List >> Reply-To: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Based on discussions during IETF 86, we are trialing an IETF >>mentoring program. During this trial period, we would like to pair >>newcomers (people who have attended 3 or fewer meetings or have >>registered as students) with existing IETF participants. The goal is to >>provide a resource for the newcomer who can assist them with integrating >>into the IETF community. Mentors and newcomers will be paired prior to >>IETF 87. >> >> What we need is for people to volunteer to be mentors. As a mentor, >>we would ask that you be willing to assist your mentoring participant >>before, during, and (hopefully) after IETF 87. The actual level of >>interaction will be driven by an agreement between the mentor and the >>mentoring participant. Additionally, we would need a brief description >>of your areas of expertise, technical interests, and conversational >>languages. >> >> A description of the Mentor Program (including a FAQ describing >> how to volunteer to be a mentor) is available: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/resources/mentoring-program.html. >> >> Anyone interested in being a mentor should follow the sign-up >> instructions contained in the above URL. The more volunteers we have, >> the stronger the program will be! >> >> Regards, >> IETF Chair > >_______________________________________________ >core mailing list >core@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core From lars@netapp.com Mon Jul 22 06:51:58 2013 Return-Path: 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 31BA221F8F4F; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:51:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.08 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.481, 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 SpkXUs8ldk4B; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9103B11E8109; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:51:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,719,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="35553587" Received: from vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2013 06:51:22 -0700 Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.240]) by vmwexceht02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:51:21 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "core@ietf.org" , "roll@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IETF Mentor Program Thread-Index: AQHOdpL426xbQQmM6keWdRwN12iKdA== Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:51:21 +0000 Message-ID: <285EAD53-1801-461E-813F-D0C250DDE03E@netapp.com> References: <20130701193936.10181.90437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <8C64DFD8A925C3448F010A88BED7303C@hq.netapp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:31:42 -0700 Subject: [Roll] Fwd: IETF Mentor Program X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:52:01 -0000 Hi, I'm one of the folks matching up mentors and newcomers. We have a few newco= mers that are interested in IoT, but VERY few IoT folks volunteering to be = mentors. Please step up! And soon! Lars Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF Chair > Subject: IETF Mentor Program > Date: July 1, 2013 21:39:36 GMT+02:00 > To: IETF Announcement List > Reply-To: >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > Based on discussions during IETF 86, we are trialing an IETF mentoring = program. During this trial period, we would like to pair newcomers (people= who have attended 3 or fewer meetings or have registered as students) with= existing IETF participants. The goal is to provide a resource for the new= comer who can assist them with integrating into the IETF community. Mentor= s and newcomers will be paired prior to IETF 87. >=20 > What we need is for people to volunteer to be mentors. As a mentor, we = would ask that you be willing to assist your mentoring participant before, = during, and (hopefully) after IETF 87. The actual level of interaction wil= l be driven by an agreement between the mentor and the mentoring participan= t. Additionally, we would need a brief description of your areas of experti= se, technical interests, and conversational languages. >=20 > A description of the Mentor Program (including a FAQ describing > how to volunteer to be a mentor) is available: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/resources/mentoring-program.html. >=20 > Anyone interested in being a mentor should follow the sign-up > instructions contained in the above URL. The more volunteers we have, > the stronger the program will be! >=20 > Regards, > IETF Chair From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Tue Jul 23 10:44:35 2013 Return-Path: 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 4CA3511E8302; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:44:35 -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 nJOTUAxOJVBA; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D8011E82AF; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [94.116.234.145] (helo=[10.38.244.130]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1V1gdI-0008PP-K4; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:44:20 +0100 Message-ID: <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:44:18 +0100 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms000608020202000309080200" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com 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: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:44:35 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms000608020202000309080200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 So "subnet" is not the right term. I think "network" as Ralph wrote is=20 fine but if the disassociation with network addressing needs to be=20 clear, why not use the term "domain"? After all, trickle-mcast talks=20 about MPL Domains. I appreciate it may have some pre-established=20 connotations but from an abstract definition point of view, "domain"=20 seems eligible enough. Robert On 16/07/2013 23:59, Ralph Droms wrote: > This draft is on the 6man agenda for Berlin. I expect the discussion w= ill be taken up there. > > In my opinion, the multicast scope should not be tied, thought the word= s in the description of the scope, to the address assignment architecture= =2E > > - Ralph > > On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:41 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: > >> Hi: >> >>>> "subnet" implies that this multicast scope must derive from the addr= ess >>>> assignment topology. The first (and only) use case is derived from = the >>>> /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of scope= >>>> 0x03? >>> I think so. >> Same here. >> >> Pascal >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > --------------ms000608020202000309080200 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILUDCC BRowggQCoAMCAQICEG0Z6qcZT2ozIuYiMnqqcd4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoT FVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg RW1haWwwHhcNMTEwNDI4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UE ChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBAJKEhFtLV5jUXi+LpOFAyKNTWF9mZfEyTvefMn1V0HhMVbdClOD5J3EHxcZppLkyxPFA GpDMJ1Zifxe1cWmu5SAb5MtjXmDKokH2auGj/7jfH0htZUOMKi4rYzh337EXrMLaggLW1DJq 1GdvIBOPXDX65VSAr9hxCh03CgJQU2yVHakQFLSZlVkSMf8JotJM3FLb3uJAAVtIaN3FSrTg 7SQfOq9xXwfjrL8UO7AlcWg99A/WF1hGFYE8aIuLgw9teiFX5jSw2zJ+40rhpVJyZCaRTqWS D//gsWD9Gm9oUZljjRqLpcxCm5t9ImPTqaD8zp6Q30QZ9FxbNboW86eb/8ECAwEAAaOCAUsw ggFHMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR6E04AdFvG eGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADARBgNV HSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwWAYDVR0fBFEwTzBNoEugSYZHaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwdAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEaDBmMD0GCCsGAQUFBzAChjFodHRwOi8vY3J0LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVRO QWRkVHJ1c3RDbGllbnRfQ0EuY3J0MCUGCCsGAQUFBzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC51c2VydHJ1 c3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCF1r54V1VtM39EUv5C1QaoAQOAivsNsv1Kv/av QUn1G1rF0q0bc24+6SZ85kyYwTAo38v7QjyhJT4KddbQPTmGZtGhm7VNm2+vKGwdr+XqdFqo 2rHA8XV6L566k3nK/uKRHlZ0sviN0+BDchvtj/1gOSBH+4uvOmVIPJg9pSW/ve9g4EnlFsjr P0OD8ODuDcHTzTNfm9C9YGqzO/761Mk6PB/tm/+bSTO+Qik5g+4zaS6CnUVNqGnagBsePdIa XXxHmaWbCG0SmYbWXVcHG6cwvktJRLiQfsrReTjrtDP6oDpdJlieYVUYtCHVmdXgQ0BCML7q peeU0rD+83X5f27nMIIGLjCCBRagAwIBAgIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQUFADCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4G A1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENP TU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMTA5 MDIwMDAwMDBaFw0xNDA5MDEyMzU5NTlaMIIBNzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxEDAOBgNVBBETB1dG NCA0V0ExFzAVBgNVBAgTDldlc3QgWW9ya3NoaXJlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlXYWtlZmllbGQxFDAS BgNVBAkTC0dyYW5nZSBNb29yMR8wHQYDVQQJExY4OSBHcmVlbmZpZWxkIENyZXNjZW50MRcw FQYDVQQKEw5HcmlkbWVyZ2UgTHRkLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrSXNzdWVkIHRocm91Z2ggR3JpZG1l cmdlIEx0ZC4gRS1QS0kgTWFuYWdlcjEfMB0GA1UECxMWQ29ycG9yYXRlIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFp bDEWMBQGA1UEAxMNUm9iZXJ0IENyYWdpZTEqMCgGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYbcm9iZXJ0LmNyYWdp ZUBncmlkbWVyZ2UuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArcThqvLe WU1Q1ZJmnb+2UQSwOQKWok3A1Mwk582AdvwaAQyBFliPyJ0kXJqtwNBoZvk+3WJr0QA5ZRr+ J0x3sXVpcxadojP2HNzy1gsgDtIGG8ltoU4vmX1A8BTlOIUT+Pg8p/bSruxV0vz0CR8ho2hs R0Zi5vU+rQKNmbgufbkWhlQnMEYjknemscLQfw1YZz90ta67doNDujFy6+X6I06HpjudgMYx 8bdsNS5xVFFwuBA1eqNQra+xLzhCOeX9PPB/zK68qdNhrni3WPYG9EhSt4Dzk+xIz9hj7wrU ZIVXDTPsY8qbUSBVpwmzI5lCHPgzurH1OK7WwgpDSsl5pwIDAQABo4IB1TCCAdEwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswHQYDVR0OBBYEFBCOXNH+lDm8U9gy3b3bRvrx vKgrMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwME BggrBgEFBQcDAjBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEDBTArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1o dHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8v Y3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVt YWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29t b2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5j cnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAmBgNVHREEHzAdgRty b2JlcnQuY3JhZ2llQGdyaWRtZXJnZS5jb20wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAD6b/O0LkPav kR4Znoqxg0Ad7M3duDm4uzfrlX4ecgq56Ccdwd+3Tayz7Ewej30woVMmTKkA/NKRaCd0wVM9 8seF/oZjXKO7o1SH27igRnGSWjCoWXsdwJGfZbYnvcIIhhsxJoCPNbeSR7C0PAFDKsP3xrJy MHMljIJsoRbZu/fnYNyFWh9OXf7fYJOGmKDKAhSabUGfhY7umvU9d/YTqo02Q6YzC7d4zPNG 1a75AuHSEchf6GdKqycG38I5y9jlDaYfXspoS3PlTNCIeZONbOSMZgftnNEVKq+SWytFqyG/ 8+dwpm/a12KMex5J8iHwaUKj++2O2rAFNjDDqXpeEYoxggQZMIIEFQIBATCBqDCBkzELMAkG A1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9y ZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQg QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjAJ BgUrDgMCGgUAoIICRTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xMzA3MjMxNzQ0MThaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSUDHkvqvNcHkXFEJTMTIlCx4vwuTBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVy IE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1p dGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEFwxUNvELajLmHIeX9p072YwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGroIGoMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxm b3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBcMVDbxC2oy5hyHl/adO9m MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAGYpedAy18TdlgHCl9Xhv4JNAczqYT13D9bXw8fG4nVNfdUj wwaMERObooDnqu4N51HKhvg6ePn3Hnk4IgTdJWJcx5+2cWyxIrVK1uWwxjKGU48zZPuFtXEr DSLHUJVrSXBqdVFdyhfO8t1xE6DLy8o+scs85hucdORhG92gBWO0yuNbgta/fcXAQ71N6UXk 9KmXvi/judfxweDe2FS/AJg/zUJ3qg5Rf/Frq5dsLmMbBxC5xyskSspvTeFMMT/A8bCkPVLX DKiuI2P1HKnVEGUc/zpJm8gpLkzdDk7ct2i0RSzM3CB4t76zzHiFWwwippPbzxsW0mVY7Lno MpyWt9YAAAAAAAA= --------------ms000608020202000309080200-- From markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au Wed Jul 24 02:38:33 2013 Return-Path: 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 8917A11E8156 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:38:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5] 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 8XSbc5SBuTJE for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm37-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm37-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [72.30.238.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB5C11E81D7 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.212.147] by nm37.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 09:38:27 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.236] by tm4.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 09:38:27 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1045.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 09:38:27 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 38877.21677.bm@omp1045.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 1174 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Jul 2013 09:38:26 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.au; s=s1024; t=1374658706; bh=1kwvI8xOMyYEjME4ZBHguE5DF0n/XyDXKU9V15B4qtQ=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=E9b8paDSUYmKq5GfR+yn5r4bpXT0nqJVf4KtyZ2ETw+ZyQROFhuI4NnjyKRhTrtCwTxD+rG5ZWa6yqwEZ2R2/6H2AtJPD5Ta5RT8USa/M2XH0pJxFxd68xONHpPp0GmiSR+IZMPoG5SYOLQGl6HuFxVLLRjGAJtBHQQUwkAU4vU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=RIqwakPU9Ad0apreJbsRmC9O/5pJVmMG6Zh4q2cCVopbzrLsUPICPMp4/QxYwfB2N7gXxjg2tYBbFPGLoOBReq6Uqjy0Hi0cHdmnLQEDzdLxJFOr2EgQVVEjRqfdq98K2bNx4k6Yj1Ho9alWKKoCKhCEtBH/TZ5t4IKqTxZCX1E=; X-YMail-OSG: SA97DToVM1kdHSqZYjropeWEY7AkFVvWLbYiiCH2SCXj309 Mx2PCEpNyfkdqjAtCtImaAjOTXh2iDEOaYlPMbXeYMUWBwRxP17jS6nxJxRw YHV6_axg6Jahm1UIx0A0YdvyzHFZckkVGudxmIznrZt22Xcx.GKwUY3QE3gN 3Poby152z_YBsrLZdEOzNOSIZMxKGQDvbvMe0QDgOxTscxp5t4ZyoH7BM3je ca3ewRqS1p.Eh42rhvnu_IKkvB48KSZznyLyT2mdH3y3UE1CMrBMux1ZfjnH 5yU98SFuwpVVBEDsqQ8FJcdLEetscGFeyMo4NDzjd2eymqaUw1HC24QSu67A R1L7rzPBwdeLiuNh0e_wDXBSU_zQiR_1mS9W7plt6R7nkwaj9OtRFw6sgekU ktnE8c8Y7j22IY8VQafh5oGEKOSZLINq3yja2GeBPqgfCI4te04MIyVal9v5 kvi_1_5zbXM.6ltMtJbZdpJWIyvIy6ZR_zOr2Cj6SzCEUfkh2uY7JTAfEU0I g6KA6MCI0n9RlrJV6T6PSsqL09RJAFpjBRu4T9GvIwjlI9IQlWHIFWv8NSzm JJnU6XO64 Received: from [150.101.221.237] by web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:38:26 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, CgoKCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0KPiBGcm9tOiBSb2JlcnQgQ3JhZ2llIDxyb2JlcnQuY3JhZ2llQGdyaWRtZXJnZS5jb20.Cj4gVG86IHJvbGxAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IDZtYW5AaWV0Zi5vcmcKPiBDYzogCj4gU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCAyNCBKdWx5IDIwMTMgMzo0NCBBTQo.IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUm9sbF0gdHJpY2tsZS1tY2FzdC0wNCAtIENsYXJpZnkgc2NvcGUgdmFsdWUgb2YgMyAtCXN1Ym5ldC1sb2NhbAo.IAo.ICsxCj4gCj4gU28gInN1Ym5ldCIgaXMgbm90IHRoZSByaWdodCABMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.150.561 References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> Message-ID: <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:38:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark ZZZ Smith To: "robert.cragie@gridmerge.com" , "roll@ietf.org" , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Mark ZZZ Smith , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:38:33 -0000 =0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message -----=0A> From: Robert Cragie =0A> To: roll@ietf.org; 6man@ietf.org=0A> Cc: =0A> Sent:= Wednesday, 24 July 2013 3:44 AM=0A> Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 -= Clarify scope value of 3 -=09subnet-local=0A> =0A> +1=0A> =0A> So "subnet"= is not the right term. I think "network" as =0A> Ralph wrote is =0A> fine = but if the disassociation with network addressing needs to be =0A> clear, w= hy not use the term "domain"? After all, trickle-mcast talks =0A> about MPL= Domains. I appreciate it may have some pre-established =0A> connotations b= ut from an abstract definition point of view, "domain" =0A> seems eligible = enough.=0A>=A0=0A=0AI think "domain" is really good when there is a qualifi= er on the front e.g., addressing domain, routing domain, multicast domain e= tc.=0A=0ARegards,=0AMark.=0A=0A> Robert=0A> =0A> On 16/07/2013 23:59, Ralph= Droms wrote:=0A>> This draft is on the 6man agenda for Berlin.=A0 I expec= t the discussion will =0A> be taken up there.=0A>> =0A>> In my opinion, th= e multicast scope should not be tied, thought the words in =0A> the descrip= tion of the scope, to the address assignment architecture.=0A>> =0A>> - Ra= lph=0A>> =0A>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:41 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" = =0A> wrote:=0A>> =0A>>> Hi:=0A>>> =0A>>>>> "subnet" = implies that this multicast scope must =0A> derive from the address=0A>>>>>= assignment topology.=A0 The first (and only) use case is derived =0A> fro= m the=0A>>>>> /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses = of =0A> scope=0A>>>>> 0x03?=0A>>>> I think so.=0A>>> Same here.=0A>>> = =0A>>> Pascal=0A>>> _______________________________________________=0A>>>= Roll mailing list=0A>>> Roll@ietf.org=0A>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/roll=0A>> _______________________________________________=0A>> = Roll mailing list=0A>> Roll@ietf.org=0A>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l= istinfo/roll=0A>> =0A> =0A> =0A> ------------------------------------------= --------------------------=0A> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list=0A> ipv= 6@ietf.org=0A> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listin= fo/ipv6=0A> ---------------------------------------------------------------= -----=0A> From stokcons@xs4all.nl Wed Jul 24 02:43:39 2013 Return-Path: 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 BA8F811E83A4 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:43:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] 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 qZ8kXSRCUPYE for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CA911E8156 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube3.xs4all.net [194.109.20.199]) by smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6O9hWHw019513 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:43:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from a82-95-140-48.adsl.xs4all.nl ([82.95.140.48]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:43:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:43:32 +0200 From: peter van der Stok To: roll@ietf.org Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (SSIjL8Tq0gbFAlG6aaveacgfXikwYOyp) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [Roll] =?utf-8?q?trickle-mcast-04_-_Clarify_scope_value_of_3_-=09?= =?utf-8?q?subnet-local?= X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:43:39 -0000 > I think "domain" is really good when there is a qualifier on the front > e.g., addressing domain, routing domain, multicast domain etc. agree Peter Mark ZZZ Smith schreef op 2013-07-24 11:38: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Cragie > To: roll@ietf.org; 6man@ietf.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 3:44 AM > Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 > - subnet-local > > +1 > > So "subnet" is not the right term. I think "network" as > Ralph wrote is > fine but if the disassociation with network addressing needs to be > clear, why not use the term "domain"? After all, trickle-mcast talks > about MPL Domains. I appreciate it may have some pre-established > connotations but from an abstract definition point of view, "domain" > seems eligible enough. >   > > I think "domain" is really good when there is a qualifier on the front > e.g., addressing domain, routing domain, multicast domain etc. > > Regards, > Mark. > > Robert > > On 16/07/2013 23:59, Ralph Droms wrote: > This draft is on the 6man agenda for Berlin.  I expect the discussion > will > be taken up there. > > In my opinion, the multicast scope should not be tied, thought the > words in > the description of the scope, to the address assignment architecture. > > - Ralph > > On Jul 16, 2013, at 1:41 PM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" > wrote: > > Hi: > > "subnet" implies that this multicast scope must > derive from the address > assignment topology.  The first (and only) use case is derived > from the > /64 prefix; do we want to have that limitation for all uses of > scope > 0x03? > I think so. > Same here. > > Pascal > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Jul 24 08:00:47 2013 Return-Path: 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 7878711E81DD; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:00:47 -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 c0HET2TBfDR5; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C993511E80DF; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AABD2018E; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 3F9BD63A88; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3075963A7C; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:58:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: "roll\@ietf.org" , "6man\@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: Ralph Droms 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:00:47 -0000 --=-=-= 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? -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUe/rkoqHRg3pndX9AQKFFwQAo6ZkpF8ov/YeNlBRPQqBufd6NZ5NPd0r 5v18wjVf6vsveeFRnVJ2NurO72XEg5RY7mEFOKkAuqklIwt6CTaHw9/KnX76YEHF gELgHKxA44mx/k66PY8PVE08edTD75RLhZwou5he8GCLEOW6K4rppdykbUd6L9Gc kxnQyROTJ1E= =dLgC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From rdroms@cisco.com Wed Jul 24 08:23:01 2013 Return-Path: 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 0BB3411E8210; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:21:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 Pb9o56midTSA; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6046311E820E; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:21:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=819; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374679277; x=1375888877; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=DjKF8aF7UF90BbwUfILFU6T9mxa6oS8FX8suHm4UPxk=; b=ONoTQx8wpk/DW9tlxu8ZTzuk4ntk/uN051DEc9G9hemZVaEekLe4B42r qCwBq/zQaZZx2uPmfn/8qmCAuvzn/wt8/IlWfQCn6KhIDn/PQyD4tK04Q sqqiexx76x+ogb7dmqc3a5RU3JFi5jd7PgSYvjGYMNNlRbl3+kclhJXeX A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFAPjv71GtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBYJCvkCBFhZ0giQBAQEDATo/EAIBCCIUEDIlAgQOBQiIAga5RY9KAjEHgxJuA6ksgxSCKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,736,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="238828476" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2013 15:21:16 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6OFLGVx016698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:21:16 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.242]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:21:16 -0500 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Thread-Index: AQHOfnvAE0hdpuPffU2KL5nISCt1Apll6o6AgA4VXjqAAFnNgA== Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:21:16 +0000 Message-ID: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.250] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <949CA0B7DF4902489178894EC8FFAA48@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "roll@ietf.org" , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:23:01 -0000 On Jul 24, 2013, at 4:58 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 > I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term. >=20 > 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. Specific examples: 1) two adjacent RPL domains, which do not share a prefix but are to be cons= idered as one realm for mDNS 2) one RPL domain and one other non-RPL subnet that are to be considered as= one realm for mDNS - Ralph >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >=20 >=20 From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Jul 24 08:32:16 2013 Return-Path: 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 0261B11E814B for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:32:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 ajSNvBcUQEZt for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F13311E8133 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp16so9900289pbb.0 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IG5d/3CZ2j3v+ValzltHFpaRHB5crTsNFowG/tA8zgg=; b=Lf8pvvRLT39fznRLNNloiEzqsUhJrULV4XlDGHo24qSMuDYWxX5AZw9ZvZXivXnq0h 5Nm9goLBHuu4bTOX7yT/DE1qh7ZHuvYMgi1QlhrRgNmvyhuAaF+I0kpKx3903vjP7lah fmPHhXBEfFPdAdqFNdAX1dLYu8SW2SU4kVlrQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=IG5d/3CZ2j3v+ValzltHFpaRHB5crTsNFowG/tA8zgg=; b=UGjvRJEgPxDO4QDzFKGebpuDQecCRQo1S7uDrIc0YGGaIlBPLk2KdcVPbMnphwmbaZ LA78r5GLQlT0ugyJA++i4Wm41jx4mfQ5Ht1UhGLtQhQJhkewlf+M0ShTDThha3KmKmVs nBGiNvfvJU7p7KGUsJTbB2ibEHF/WWy/fCYBM3fepcVX+DM47DJIg94E4ZhkAzUkm744 uRR/fVL0/FHusw6RXp6gNYEqB4XiAuiWqRnwmEJUUB1Al1Q4U6Z2hYcIs8c5n18DIyWC 8xxPnN6POuZZhV0RByIktgFRygnmFD9mCkV3izxZLLgy7Iip2W865imsUzVyK/bCwhLz +7Yg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.231.200 with SMTP id ti8mr42778555pbc.46.1374679934765; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.34.111 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:32:14 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlaUQ+jYk1qNmN72F/xa/ycpIPjyrvp/K7NC7SVpzcPWT2KOgz2X4PPOVx9AH4SukQQ9HiL Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:32:16 -0000 I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a single router. Regards Ulrich On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson 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? > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Jul 24 09:39:18 2013 Return-Path: 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 9D13411E80FE; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:39:18 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 w7Fsqd6l2u7e; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6656121F854E; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A502018F; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E7CF363A88; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61D463A7C; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:37:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "roll@ietf.org" , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:39:18 -0000 --=-=-= Ralph Droms (rdroms) 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. > 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 , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfAC1oqHRg3pndX9AQLlfgP/dvg8MPKdXPSX5gJKg9kl+lxx7G2A+nXT WkvpfoTXmg/PHe0fnosf0095Vz+oj1KP1obC4Lge6KQuJvkMKQeOGysqsK+gUZjr xwyrjzoNkzSi869vDLizZEzXXwQUBEMZAFWE0lETY0y1JEzGi+QCDAKb1ukLkpa/ 6LFhvXWFaKU= =f9fm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Wed Jul 24 09:47:30 2013 Return-Path: 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 50EB011E8115 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:47:30 -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 z5QfNaBCNOdI for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBC611E8151 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [94.116.37.204] (helo=[10.38.244.130]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1V22Dh-0006VO-Nr for roll@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:47:21 +0100 Message-ID: <51F00519.1020604@gridmerge.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:47:21 +0100 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050409090607080805010602" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com 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: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:47:30 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms050409090607080805010602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can you provide a practical example of how you would configure IPv6=20 addresses for a simple RPL network comprised of, say, a DODAG root and=20 two RPL routers at a rank above? And generally how route-over networks=20 would work where interfaces are assigned solely a /128 prefix?=20 Forbidding the use of a subnet prefix on the basis that link=20 connectivity cannot be guaranteed seems rather odd to me. Robert On 24/07/2013 16:32, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in > long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad > idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all > these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide > flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a > single router. > > Regards > Ulrich > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson > 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? >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson , 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 > --------------ms050409090607080805010602 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILUDCC BRowggQCoAMCAQICEG0Z6qcZT2ozIuYiMnqqcd4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoT FVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg RW1haWwwHhcNMTEwNDI4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UE ChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBAJKEhFtLV5jUXi+LpOFAyKNTWF9mZfEyTvefMn1V0HhMVbdClOD5J3EHxcZppLkyxPFA GpDMJ1Zifxe1cWmu5SAb5MtjXmDKokH2auGj/7jfH0htZUOMKi4rYzh337EXrMLaggLW1DJq 1GdvIBOPXDX65VSAr9hxCh03CgJQU2yVHakQFLSZlVkSMf8JotJM3FLb3uJAAVtIaN3FSrTg 7SQfOq9xXwfjrL8UO7AlcWg99A/WF1hGFYE8aIuLgw9teiFX5jSw2zJ+40rhpVJyZCaRTqWS D//gsWD9Gm9oUZljjRqLpcxCm5t9ImPTqaD8zp6Q30QZ9FxbNboW86eb/8ECAwEAAaOCAUsw ggFHMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR6E04AdFvG eGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADARBgNV HSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwWAYDVR0fBFEwTzBNoEugSYZHaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwdAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEaDBmMD0GCCsGAQUFBzAChjFodHRwOi8vY3J0LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVRO QWRkVHJ1c3RDbGllbnRfQ0EuY3J0MCUGCCsGAQUFBzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC51c2VydHJ1 c3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCF1r54V1VtM39EUv5C1QaoAQOAivsNsv1Kv/av QUn1G1rF0q0bc24+6SZ85kyYwTAo38v7QjyhJT4KddbQPTmGZtGhm7VNm2+vKGwdr+XqdFqo 2rHA8XV6L566k3nK/uKRHlZ0sviN0+BDchvtj/1gOSBH+4uvOmVIPJg9pSW/ve9g4EnlFsjr P0OD8ODuDcHTzTNfm9C9YGqzO/761Mk6PB/tm/+bSTO+Qik5g+4zaS6CnUVNqGnagBsePdIa XXxHmaWbCG0SmYbWXVcHG6cwvktJRLiQfsrReTjrtDP6oDpdJlieYVUYtCHVmdXgQ0BCML7q peeU0rD+83X5f27nMIIGLjCCBRagAwIBAgIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQUFADCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4G A1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENP TU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMTA5 MDIwMDAwMDBaFw0xNDA5MDEyMzU5NTlaMIIBNzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxEDAOBgNVBBETB1dG NCA0V0ExFzAVBgNVBAgTDldlc3QgWW9ya3NoaXJlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlXYWtlZmllbGQxFDAS BgNVBAkTC0dyYW5nZSBNb29yMR8wHQYDVQQJExY4OSBHcmVlbmZpZWxkIENyZXNjZW50MRcw FQYDVQQKEw5HcmlkbWVyZ2UgTHRkLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrSXNzdWVkIHRocm91Z2ggR3JpZG1l cmdlIEx0ZC4gRS1QS0kgTWFuYWdlcjEfMB0GA1UECxMWQ29ycG9yYXRlIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFp bDEWMBQGA1UEAxMNUm9iZXJ0IENyYWdpZTEqMCgGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYbcm9iZXJ0LmNyYWdp ZUBncmlkbWVyZ2UuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArcThqvLe WU1Q1ZJmnb+2UQSwOQKWok3A1Mwk582AdvwaAQyBFliPyJ0kXJqtwNBoZvk+3WJr0QA5ZRr+ J0x3sXVpcxadojP2HNzy1gsgDtIGG8ltoU4vmX1A8BTlOIUT+Pg8p/bSruxV0vz0CR8ho2hs R0Zi5vU+rQKNmbgufbkWhlQnMEYjknemscLQfw1YZz90ta67doNDujFy6+X6I06HpjudgMYx 8bdsNS5xVFFwuBA1eqNQra+xLzhCOeX9PPB/zK68qdNhrni3WPYG9EhSt4Dzk+xIz9hj7wrU ZIVXDTPsY8qbUSBVpwmzI5lCHPgzurH1OK7WwgpDSsl5pwIDAQABo4IB1TCCAdEwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswHQYDVR0OBBYEFBCOXNH+lDm8U9gy3b3bRvrx vKgrMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwME BggrBgEFBQcDAjBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEDBTArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1o dHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8v Y3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVt YWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29t b2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5j cnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAmBgNVHREEHzAdgRty b2JlcnQuY3JhZ2llQGdyaWRtZXJnZS5jb20wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAD6b/O0LkPav kR4Znoqxg0Ad7M3duDm4uzfrlX4ecgq56Ccdwd+3Tayz7Ewej30woVMmTKkA/NKRaCd0wVM9 8seF/oZjXKO7o1SH27igRnGSWjCoWXsdwJGfZbYnvcIIhhsxJoCPNbeSR7C0PAFDKsP3xrJy MHMljIJsoRbZu/fnYNyFWh9OXf7fYJOGmKDKAhSabUGfhY7umvU9d/YTqo02Q6YzC7d4zPNG 1a75AuHSEchf6GdKqycG38I5y9jlDaYfXspoS3PlTNCIeZONbOSMZgftnNEVKq+SWytFqyG/ 8+dwpm/a12KMex5J8iHwaUKj++2O2rAFNjDDqXpeEYoxggQZMIIEFQIBATCBqDCBkzELMAkG A1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9y ZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQg QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjAJ BgUrDgMCGgUAoIICRTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xMzA3MjQxNjQ3MjFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRvjDjS/VBM8lGU33rLWC+dZsX5pDBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVy IE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1p dGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEFwxUNvELajLmHIeX9p072YwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGroIGoMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxm b3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBcMVDbxC2oy5hyHl/adO9m MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAByNgK/oEwtAu8sF56Coe+I7f8QVv78tybDw/feP0q+jSlVo G5EeXyuzcQ22VBAAszswUenM8qOy/WAcn7M59JvA5vTfQSI9OinaVoUk94NbfpL3bg9ee7W8 5SyRnxb6v9nT/R1i/UxLO9jXfgyecBRbATn1nm1Q6/WukjPbFKbztvjxVXEirReHPfzpOBuk D1e9bvFHRJs0dg5zmZByOs9cPGSgCa0YUg/Oj9xCYHDHQU0TRiCKjeuhIA8vHEm6+KCQFZKS 1OvcFM5VhDQoWJM8nm6eBH3eRPAbRFYn63cxwJxaPZBnM5qvegtD3UV2fM/KrT7S3wMscgZ5 yyikWwYAAAAAAAA= --------------ms050409090607080805010602-- From d.sturek@att.net Wed Jul 24 09:49:53 2013 Return-Path: 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 854ED11E8105 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:53 -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 zvHB1DujV3Lb for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:48 -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 4418311E8111 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.196.81.166] by nm18.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 16:49:46 -0000 Received: from [98.139.221.48] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 16:49:46 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp101.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2013 16:49:46 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374684586; bh=837pIVGUCeynIYw+sY4b2aCQycSdaBoQ8w2cFyNwouM=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=rAHiXb5Xji407V1Ji5WPBRy41cPtEFZcrROQarXKLM2n3S0q73JOqdlS7CmObGDQp4TPEfqOLVuxIY2djqIi0SufI5TTbpg0yGF48tgcwvM+TMss9nEVhp1+27weJvDvMXemGUw1dc2edaQOo34rCkaNEvkB/tv6ubIFrVZlB8o= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 355961.70657.bm@smtp101.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: wSnMoykVM1k7AZvCoWEE4DiGFXHhowTpUfgZheECLUHnuu1 b3jXrCeKtWNTlBDwBuAuDUoopxHVgJfW8THb_PyWUfZpE2iasdZmvAiisuRd JXoMaXfuThUrqSL3_HWBQcpE3dA4OXQoekm3ODVASL7I881bmjvCy3dcsVgq DZ9gxrUDjioHNZ_yk.pvIYR_G2j8tSaew79FmDKlUlzN54ZYzSJ0LQQfYL5k x280UsM18CjP91YeqXbZNZlg4mepr9A2rCi1E5clz.CpJ0ePOGGEh2qZ35r_ mBtZ0CLcY5q5hnNhi0HcD.QUS_pJfcIUmbCvkX1XPItFy44OI2eLzozfDIOp hPlJewUXquKCDCzTfzdoBK0enRL2D1C3PkzjbMedmwjQDk1.Kcc_EsEpWOCm x9Z5P9wKUOU7s.NpjRw8sSLKuGU37fm.MKpqtgOyUu65S7iyXGrJ9pkcB5l8 QX0kpugylhnA.LRTa6B5tG0STlmSdGD4FUYe_TleWawrNMGEAZOJn0KiAFjw mx1X_psd3vmm2eCyc_A-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.1.1.129] (d.sturek@66.27.60.174 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2013 09:49:46 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:49:42 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:49:53 -0000 Hi Ulrich, I did review the you cited in your earlier e-mail (RFC 5889). It seems that RFC suggests that link local addresses not be generated for interfaces with undetermined link characteristics (which certainly apply to route over protocols like ROLL RPL and the MANET protocols). However, in looking 6LoWPAN ND (RFC 6775), isn't assignment of link local addresses to such a topology exactly what is going on? If you add ROLL RPL (RFC 655) to this deployment scenario and specifcally with the illustrative examples in Annex A, it seems clear that a multi-hop subnet is exactly what is described. Next, if someone were to want to support a protocol like mDNS (RFC 6792) which uses link locals, how could that be supported using RFC 5889? I think these are important topics as we seemed to have to go to extremes in our work (ZigBee IP) to deal with ULAs when it would have been great if link locals were available in the context of a route over protocol like ROLL RPL. Don On 7/24/13 8:32 AM, "Ulrich Herberg" wrote: >I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in >long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad >idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all >these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide >flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a >single router. > >Regards >Ulrich > >On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson > 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? >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson , 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 From rdroms@cisco.com Thu Jul 25 02:14:11 2013 Return-Path: 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 1019A21F9AE3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 xb1ww0kFMcaN; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1B021F9AD8; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:14:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1968; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374743645; x=1375953245; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=EWqOEWPT8m1HE1rbQlBcdmj9yaTyYPOeaif4d4ObRKk=; b=FIaw0asWVdX+BdJNCcJkboG1GS+/Cgz9X7lerjeli+bhfDfotSmMlb5T 5SKMu4+3U3gz0XCwonsF71ucYdHjrLFnLI8QrxY1/+uHqilG1xSGEhrBt j9hcsF100ctG+mGgCvSLiqB+emGiNJbgBryO9zf3/KTCRq1Qs9/psDgGZ c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAOrr8FGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagwaBBb1dgRgWdIIkAQEBAwE6PxACAQgSBgoUEDIXDgIEDgUIE4dvBrocj0oCMQeDEm4DqSyDFIIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,742,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="239286703" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2013 09:14:05 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6P9E4RY031721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:14:04 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.242]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 04:13:54 -0500 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: Michael Richardson Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Thread-Index: AQHOfnvAE0hdpuPffU2KL5nISCt1Apll6o6AgA4VXjqAAFnNgIAAFV8AgAEWUoA= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:13:53 +0000 Message-ID: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.148] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9A4594E4499FEB48BBD8395F27B7687B@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "roll@ietf.org Lossy networks Over Low power and" , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:14:11 -0000 Michael... On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:37 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 > Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term. >>>=20 >>> When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to t= he set >>> of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used? >=20 >> Hm, I thought I responded but apparently not... >=20 >> This change to scope 0x03 is not just for MPL, so we don't know how >> else it might be used in the future. >=20 > I understand, but perhaps it would be better, if, when another use case c= omes > 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 "reser= ved" state and give guidelines for its use. Let's see how 6man WG consensus develops... - Ralph >=20 >> Specific examples: >> 1) two adjacent RPL domains, which do not share a prefix but are to be >> considered as one realm for mDNS >=20 > 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 packet= s do > not cross that boundary. >=20 >> 2) one RPL domain and one other non-RPL subnet that are to be considered= as one realm for mDNS >=20 > Do you mean, in fact, one LLN and another non-LLN technology, which have = MPL > capable routers connecting them? >=20 > 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 mult= iple > link types, and I find it hard to imagine an MPL capable router which doe= s > not also speak RPL. >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >=20 >=20 From stokcons@xs4all.nl Thu Jul 25 05:53:13 2013 Return-Path: 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 765C821F9943 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:53:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] 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 fNevJEljR4Up for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA0C21F9633 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl (roundcube7.xs4all.net [194.109.20.205]) by smtp-vbr11.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6PCr655099470 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:53:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stokcons@xs4all.nl) Received: from a82-95-140-48.adsl.xs4all.nl ([82.95.140.48]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:53:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:53:06 +0200 From: peter van der Stok To: roll@ietf.org Organization: vanderstok consultancy Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> Message-ID: <202e77ad4286b74c606d04de997bd996@xs4all.nl> X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (pywr6tUe6TPPmL4svJgL6kJwduC+4GoW) User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner 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: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:53:13 -0000 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 > wrote: > > > Ralph Droms (rdroms) 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 , Sandelman Software Works > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 25 06:07:22 2013 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 To: , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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" 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 >> wrote: >> >> >> Ralph Droms (rdroms) 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 , 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 From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jul 25 07:08:29 2013 Return-Path: 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 2F8C621F8C72; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.767 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.767 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.832, 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 I5TXmLQeqt1J; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359D321F9A4C; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7DE20256; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 63BC163A88; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E30763A7C; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:07:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "roll@ietf.org Lossy networks Over Low power and" , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:08:29 -0000 --=-=-= Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> Ralph Droms (rdroms) 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. I think that we agree about what we want. What I see you saying is that you want a definition which I find rather (technically) vague, in anticipation of uses which are not yet well defined, and may never come to pass. I'm saying, let's make the MPL scope-3 use case clear and precise, and if another situation comes along for which scope-3 is appropriate, let's extend the definition at that time. Otherwise, this reminds of site-local scope: We defined it in what we thought were clear terms for a human, but which turned out to be too vague for machines, with the result that it could never be discovered/used. Meanwhile, I think that MPL is hung up waiting for this to be properly clarified. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfExBoqHRg3pndX9AQIlrAQA4PvbkBgxY7iGDzzJtuuvuF2juvPWYk0H aNnQPucW+RG2wHOfTIPBhA3T3JlLiXDK2WVYpaC5Dg/t+mSkuJ8UUds6ORkdYgPf 9JcTmg/SJqMzpvUtaSdqSmWjOo/Ilm62CFJEkydNzLhn3wEA5BKenPAcYY8qQH4A P3nTvsQNTew= =9CEv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jul 25 07:20:41 2013 Return-Path: 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 B930821F9AB4; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:20:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, 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 Xh+csYR1wkcQ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B0321F99BF; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2205820256; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 71E9B63A88; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D41163A7C; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:19:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: consultancy@vanderstok.org In-Reply-To: <202e77ad4286b74c606d04de997bd996@xs4all.nl> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <202e77ad4286b74c606d04de997bd996@xs4all.nl> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: roll@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:20:41 -0000 --=-=-= It is important to keep the 6man CC, since the document is a 6man document. I will top-post your entire comments for 6man, but then copy them again and comment. > 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 Please recognize that RFC1136 is from an era prior to classless domain routing. Subnetting in that period of time referred to taking a class-ful route ("class A", "class B", "class C") and further dividing it within an AS. RFC1136 also predates BGP4, and therefore even the term AS is not used. Further, it's a translation from OSI to IETF terminology. > IMO, routing domain is nicely defined in RFC 1136. > an adminsitrative domain can contain one or more routing domains. In the internet today, one has Autonomous Systems (AS), identified by AS Numbers in BGP4. The terms routing domain and administrative domains are not also very precise today. For ISPs, an administrative domain may correspond to the convex set of all networks that announce using the same ASN. Some ISPs have non-convex parts of their networks, and use multiple ASNs. A routing domain might be said to be akin to an OSPF area, which is typically a subset of an ASN. (In particular, the convex nature of BGP4 means that an AS needs to have full connectivity within) > I translate a mesh subnet running RPL as a routing domain > while an adminstrative domain can contain several interconnected RPL domains I don't think use of these terms helps define scope-3 at all. peter van der Stok 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 >> wrote: >> >> >> Ralph Droms (rdroms) 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 , 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 -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfEz3oqHRg3pndX9AQJT3wQA3r35vkrJCFn/MIUkFzuN9TClpP/tOIT3 f3OQ0IyEAxNSbayR31rVxGOM4oA7vNaTFpJYVpQXpGejomXDUfcJiLuOtpAOP6au 7Ujkr8oEPYxCGbYUjEK2K0msJySF+e3Tko3C2G18t7vnmBTuXe8Eas1VTRot1TJp 7wShu4dQqHI= =AGZx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From rdroms@cisco.com Thu Jul 25 07:47:00 2013 Return-Path: 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 7D8CA21F9AB4; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 ZsE+IVn1uska; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7EE21F938E; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:46:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2838; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374763606; x=1375973206; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=sY+RIZeMhz0/g4IXWGjBzvxLJi/trYb1oTzAWevwVFY=; b=hVUivE6NgsCReOEBrPtOJtz9svHnMfA2GHj14a8aeQ2zfN88+em79uK7 Kzr3swZgZO5sHDX2du2nzbhwttMRkj4UxBGleRm1g9F7ZA1koziOOhCpl CFFNGL7rqXDzMud/3Pm7d/e0Swhi+YXME67bLQdu4kyxadBRXELykPWWu Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAAk58VGtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABagwY1UL1dgRYWdIIkAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsQAgEIGAoUECcLJQIEDgUIiAIGDLk+BI5OfAIxB4MSbgOpLIMUgXE5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,743,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="239375771" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2013 14:46:45 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6PEkj9Z016209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:46:45 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.242]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:46:45 -0500 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local Thread-Index: AQHOfnvAE0hdpuPffU2KL5nISCt1Apll6o6AgA4VXjqAAFnNgIAAFV8AgAEWUoCAAFHsgIAACxMA Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:46:45 +0000 Message-ID: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37C0D96@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <3896.1374761225@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <3896.1374761225@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.252.153] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2403AFDE716A3348BC9CAFC34F49171D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:47:00 -0000 On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:07 PM 7/25/13, Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 > Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>> Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>>>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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? >>>=20 >>>> Hm, I thought I responded but apparently not... >>>=20 >>>> This change to scope 0x03 is not just for MPL, so we don't know how >>>> else it might be used in the future. >>>=20 >>> 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. >=20 >> I don't agree; in my opinion, it's better to release scope 0x03 from >> "reserved" state and give guidelines for its use. >=20 > I think that we agree about what we want. Sorry, I disagree. I simply want to release the scope from "(reserved)" st= ate and write down whatever constraints needed for consistency with other s= copes. Jinmei-san (if I may make an inference from his e-mail) supports writing th= is definition into and made the helpful suggestion to add the MPL use case= as an example, which I support. >=20 > What I see you saying is that you want a definition which I find rather > (technically) vague, in anticipation of uses which are not yet well defin= ed, > and may never come to pass. >=20 > I'm saying, let's make the MPL scope-3 use case clear and precise, and if > another situation comes along for which scope-3 is appropriate, let's ext= end > the definition at that time. >=20 > Otherwise, this reminds of site-local scope: > We defined it in what we thought were clear terms for a human, but which > turned out to be too vague for machines, with the result that it could n= ever > be discovered/used. >=20 > Meanwhile, I think that MPL is hung up waiting for this to be properly > clarified. Really? I suggest MPL is hung up waiting author revisions for several last= call comments, including this one - none of which have been addressed sinc= e the last call back in March. This issue could be addressed directly in t= he roll WG by explicitly writing down the behavior of scope 0x03 for MPL fo= rwarding in the MPL spec, which is, in my opinion, where it belongs. My point is that, in my opinion, reserving scope 0x03 for MPL is not the ri= ght thing to do. - Ralph >=20 > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Jul 25 10:52:28 2013 Return-Path: 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 AFFA321F842B for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 lcPUkXwWduHX for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x232.google.com (mail-pd0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8599521F90A7 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w16so71785pde.37 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4ISZxCmTfBocLbACVIQlI6zXjNZ7LidLfW2CXSPAn3Y=; b=loY8EknRsVXRjFcfkvBl0IR9zSvKzBJa/ushdb6eeuLTkIj0YWWLssvjpTpT3aplmA TecbEDWls5mqD2xhEvhtYe9Hlx8Pg/yvCgiYMnZ28OArN0jx5wZUIdNPoe5aYxerN263 gU5BgycJFc0O/89zeVsieOnRIm4gsxLuBmaKc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=4ISZxCmTfBocLbACVIQlI6zXjNZ7LidLfW2CXSPAn3Y=; b=Qhaao6cwI3fpokVaRZD9T2sudVBWjAs6Oz8dgr7Vke5/JDfjBmca4zSU2yIo0K4EuC 7Jnwb4YjUlhRUUTsxVLjwef06Kb95DQEOC99LVea0hRlQ/u1B6+RtcM7byT+beSsEnpr ZqfXyHkrlEN+u+1nmrb/t/5Qza/YKMKITkUaP2twM2YajxeMW7ERDBdXwLMh3oDp9eFl /YIiXbKQKbJdfV2R2O7Q7SoV7qwW38Ssc293lBkI6wcnez1Ks+QFok4pBlTri1c9msHL zTNOJT1GFt+zlaY9L3iIQLIwjcvteAqhO/0kMmIoFl7WxyspGIrTkYrS0YBmKm2wvGdL h7bw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.141.232 with SMTP id rr8mr31878100pab.184.1374774742208; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.34.111 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:52:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkCaMXWLEYzOweQJZPfcxTkLPJr8kfDX1bHiuk5Re9uVd3ZjiLG6+qPqEdjtrUmr0S1vjWq Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome (was: Re: 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:52:28 -0000 Hi, Several people in the ROLL WG, amongst others Rob Caigie and Don Sturek, were interested in the topic of multi-link subnets and the related multicast scope for MPL / for IPv6 in general [1]. This is an important technical topic and deserves due discussion on this mailing list and 6man. I think that both discussions (multi-link subnet and IPv6 multicast scope 0x03) are closely related; because using "subnet" for a scope that is meant to be network-wide would imply using (even mandating) multi-link subnets, which I think is a bad idea. So in order to explain why I think that the "subnet" scope is a bad idea, I needed to explain why multi-link subnets are a bad idea. I am, however, for the time being prohibited from continued participation on this technical matter. The ROLL WG chairs sent me a formal warning saying that: o my "comments about multi-hop subnets are not welcome on the ROLL list" o I should "refrain repeating them yet again, it is disruptive to the conversation, and confuses many people." o this was a formal warning "as per RFC2418/BCP25, and taking RFC3683/BPC83 and RFC3934/BCP94 into account, (particularly BCP93 section 1, paragraph 3) and BCP94 section 2, paragraph 2." I am very sad to see that technical arguments are ejected from the discussion by the ROLL Working Group Chairs if these comments are not in line with their personal objectives. I have sent an appeal to the IESG regarding this formal warning, according to RFC2026, Section 6.5., "Process Failures", as I believe that an open exchange of technical arguments is key to the work in any IETF working group - and that issuing formal warnings simply to suppress dissenting technical arguments is not beneficial to the IETF, its participants, and its protocol designs. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07951.html Best regards Ulrich On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in > long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad > idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all > these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide > flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a > single router. > > Regards > Ulrich > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson > 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? >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >> From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 25 11:03:54 2013 Return-Path: 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 0BD8321F84F6 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:03:54 -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 dxVJwGFO596T for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm6-vm1.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm6-vm1.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A073521F90CC for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.196.81.162] by nm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 18:03:47 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.214] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 18:03:47 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp103.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 18:03:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374775427; bh=/ZBZWt8evzcnqiYElSCB4xvMsuIuYCGOAbbxSuT/waQ=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=n8ZBgyx3P5uYsd9Ah3yS48ZhMyo/RU9Yp2jk/vwUHzc5FT3iqCYAKx20ewuBrwxhkwF+/B+Wix6MbJggbUnmhgl4vSxNJ9k/FxTxYCDhP5U+Xvg6SSFfu86cSNHfF1FU+BBZT1jTqn+vvl4cZRdem1ZWTUhpo4fNDUueKHbyUU8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 319575.50611.bm@smtp103.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: F36a108VM1l9CIvzT0OlaaSIzeKsP9f4lOd0paC834AzFjc khlzO4S6fsfagfq1vvwafKl78YXia45jjykYFOYpD1WHbuHM1h6p4IKetURK M3veX0UxnYAJk_nIP_K9KILE3jHb_G0G7FNknngMgC5LezEmWxKK5ruid1on 5eAgJYczl0AX8Ze8pBnOuOAAi836HgMy0eaZkXZ4bk7DLxE9fMzNM8dUj87v 50WoY_RSHd7b1PVCuy9HXKZ6RMgHB5P849HlQ5z_L4860xl3UIgWRg1XpFwp 2KKLkjrXNsb4XEq8CmsPOY10CazllzVayid2T.Md7Rubox_xSB_YPJI7JHRi I45bkXgaEjD_IVa7z6uAs72PAuKdUm9.njm3Dv4QWmPTRcSfgKc43faDt1NJ fvOdsRPYVfN6QRKTv6S.qsQaMth1EKk3pqeWDLUm8_eZwAVXGrXi4EdR1d2E ms5CFkK3j8EKOyMuTdbKmkPA4lMu7mIWeC1sBumUiIclm3ZjYvf4Ijq8oqZn VyfCc.jw2GEgtVIOuH94- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@67.124.200.231 with login) by smtp103.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2013 18:03:47 +0000 UTC User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:03:44 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome (was: Re: trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local) In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome (was: Re: 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:03:54 -0000 Hi Ulrich, Let me say as an implementer of ROLL RPL (and Trickle Multicast) the topic of multi-link subnets and the general topic of multicast address scope continues to be a major concern. For example, we needed to extend mDNS to cover site specific addressing for this reason as well as need to define another draft describing ULA prefix delegation rules and forwarding rules for border routers (yet to be done). While our current profile (ZigBee IP) will continue to use multi-link subnets, it would be fantastic to have a discussion on how multi-link subnets might be avoided in the future (if that is even possible). I have to say after your last reference to the AUTOCONF RFC, I still have doubts a /128 prefix solves the problems we are having (though interested in seeing if I am wrong.....) I for one am in favor of having a *technical* discussion on the topic on the ROLL reflector. I also think this topic applies to MANET as well. I did not see any discussion on this thread that was not focused on a relevant technical topic. Hopefully, the WG chairs/vice-chairs will reconsider. Don On 7/25/13 10:52 AM, "Ulrich Herberg" wrote: >Hi, > >Several people in the ROLL WG, amongst others Rob Caigie and Don >Sturek, were interested in the topic of multi-link subnets and the >related multicast scope for MPL / for IPv6 in general [1]. > >This is an important technical topic and deserves due discussion on >this mailing list and 6man. > >I think that both discussions (multi-link subnet and IPv6 multicast >scope 0x03) are closely related; because using "subnet" for a scope >that is meant to be network-wide would imply using (even mandating) >multi-link subnets, which I think is a bad idea. So in order to >explain why I think that the "subnet" scope is a bad idea, I needed to >explain why multi-link subnets are a bad idea. > >I am, however, for the time being prohibited from continued >participation on this technical matter. The ROLL WG chairs sent me a >formal warning saying that: > > o my "comments about multi-hop subnets are not welcome on the ROLL list" > > o I should "refrain repeating them yet again, it is disruptive to the >conversation, and confuses many people." > > o this was a formal warning "as per RFC2418/BCP25, and taking >RFC3683/BPC83 and RFC3934/BCP94 into account, (particularly BCP93 >section 1, paragraph 3) and BCP94 section 2, paragraph 2." > >I am very sad to see that technical arguments are ejected from the >discussion by the ROLL Working Group Chairs if these comments are not >in line with their personal objectives. > >I have sent an appeal to the IESG regarding this formal warning, >according to RFC2026, Section 6.5., "Process Failures", as I believe >that an open exchange of technical arguments is key to the work in any >IETF working group - and that issuing formal warnings simply to >suppress dissenting technical arguments is not beneficial to the IETF, >its participants, and its protocol designs. > > >[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07951.html > >Best regards >Ulrich > >On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Ulrich Herberg >wrote: >> I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in >> long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad >> idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all >> these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide >> flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a >> single router. >> >> Regards >> Ulrich >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson >> 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? >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Richardson , 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 From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jul 25 12:41:45 2013 Return-Path: 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 65E6621F8618; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:41:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.666, 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 qOyR1KWZzbnc; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7E521F84E3; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A16E20256; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1A6EE63A88; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DEC63A7C; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:40:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:41:45 -0000 --=-=-= Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked. I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking without creating multi-link subnets. It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on the interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere. That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfF/HIqHRg3pndX9AQIISgP8D2WR/UEctWENGdovrrChXjDjk3Mw/jQK sxn806m27c8X5Sm2U7AflWKQ1NvIwnL/6e+mg4dgCxbWWBQ0/o4EMhAsYZiJTtaq REUF7l5cYgJiVG+gjevE9ASMZSCeb4PAcwZ1luBbjk4ayJFMLDtgRP7qhLFNyAN6 1Vqacey4I90= =l5sm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 25 13:11:46 2013 Return-Path: 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 2E34221F854E for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:11:46 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 iEEQPy-zUq9I for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm8-vm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm8-vm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.216]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C19021F8E70 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.39.60.171] by nm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 20:11:37 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.174] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 20:11:37 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 20:11:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374783097; bh=fhnG4R7ypCo6+FQT3VPd/FMm6S1S04hRmZ4hwDsQ1+Q=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=nEP2extSDr6Em6ERM2zxetmhhZRCKg2QhObDriL7ctC4Idicph4Gf5OEo1slDbLwJ3AxIxrtoBD9UcN4AJcaf9nIq4n16mbOiYeoogpP6+BZM4pZMTwL8JrXXg+VD/UOqeAYLTxuSx1WMHCJMgcJgVGK+dFb0BC5kmFw+PU9n8o= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 401612.78339.bm@smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: ebK_Q8kVM1nAnV8o2BOvzYpy9bezgMB5d0ZNpO3B.9SVRDv lPaJhXnbdQchyGOCYbm_3J2qTZK__XzTGCN0uKk1Z46bVUlcxBoA09tBH4BM NcdydENW0NO4xwiWkWuF3YOqzq975c4uG0ya6sB0siVLLcix8zaa7bY8tGYn dg7uCLehO6HpjLBAXjYSJj0AMuytqLxFqL123ijtE3_UWTRPl4Cl63iIHZa2 9lkJkufLLBo9Fu4W1wyZJ9u4bO0b_k4HgjMkFjug9dF.RyuURYQvOGmHwXRH wyKdVyNOJdlXagmRDLR1xYLozk5v5U1gloYIaC.Um2vo.lP4V3GTLjFWtcdW gJ9yk8HOloq.dndC47X8H3urqq9ocI3H9j0.e09Ekb6.pLfDDcM3XvZqLou0 8ZHScDKKl2kpCBlJ2e4wBW..grxWW_ajYGrJUTNyPqqLr83Mght5MWU_z3LQ UgvAps3mgOgANH.qt_oHr4t7L72H_O5wskQ552oDahZ6Uy5fB_nb00O.SUTz cRlZCQWOs47CCwB4Zuok- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@67.124.200.231 with login) by smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2013 13:11:37 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:09:05 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Multi-Link Subnets via /128 In-Reply-To: <23549.1374781215@sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Multi-Link Subnets via /128 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:11:46 -0000 Note I changed the title on the thread...... My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it solves the problem simply by saying "don't allocate link locals". The issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off of link locals). Some questions: 1) Would you recommend then the allocation of ULA's with a /128 (as opposed to globals). There are a lot of applications that really only need to communicate within a residence and don't really have a need in having all devices using globals 2) If we use ULA's, there does not seem to be guidance around which interfaces to perform prefix delegation on and which should not (specifically, I am thinking of rules that a border router would use as to where to issue PIOs in a RPL sense) 3) And of course if there ended up being more than one border router, there is also not guidance on how to combine or proxy ULA prefixes (maybe this topic could be a Homenet solution....) In case anyone is wondering, our initial application deployment using ZigBee IP was Smart Energy Profile 2.0 (SEP 2.0). There was a requirement to perform service discovery without a centralized repository (since it was a multivendor deployment where no device manufacturer wanted responsibility for a centralized DNS). mDNS (extended to use ULAs) was our choice. It would seem with a /128, we would still need the same extensions to mDNS. We plan to support Wi-Fi, HomePlug Power Line Carrier and ZigBee IP in a combined network topology within the home. Don On 7/25/13 12:40 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > > >Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked. > >I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking >without creating multi-link subnets. > >It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on >the >interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere. >That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 25 13:35:22 2013 Return-Path: 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 C4B8021F943C for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:35:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.261 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] 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 Mc5gT30u89uL for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm1-vm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm1-vm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B740921F8618 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.39.60.173] by nm1.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 20:35:15 -0000 Received: from [98.138.104.100] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 20:35:15 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp120.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 20:35:15 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374784515; bh=gFfL75VOOcFtFnI3SO4TK7carOhKF8DwLxdC3en5d0o=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=yBpXzKWXavTv63XX6T273AojozZa6B7DLjFngMNEFQZgb2/Zm5tYUgeKCZyNFspa64JGgC4ozv3WgMbfXjTNXfDp0h/vMP8cwMDtky4cEp2D2Y7W+W8cZ9wh4xQl9PBF7ClujjZJKE72J2WCS/t8rpFsIHg85kq9O7hxzseQSuI= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 759979.79855.bm@smtp120.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: q97k1zcVM1kP9LsDFgSrjW3oE8XDnzWrNHIO5_QVkwvUoEA xr4kwfa6T35RUxumJZe3EYHN.AEKYD8F40FfTTO1Gqzq_tRYSpEWiOt3U5q9 v1_uwDryw7.CBQ3aiGG7CT5y0LhZE11SEQ0BmPnxBxMJKFGfpN.59VhFM5Ui J_2Yez.q6n1baQ8lje8CHQOevoJirLAPQtwl.Q8Qb2bkCU29D6QCtfx9sX3U tMuGQuY.FzyF_CTUdlcAJgLbtmegYyoVkYVaO2BJKNbcqJv5GMtVEtO1R.iY nHHEQXMgXvQoddxCT5H1qWbjY3RPROxtu3HbH5c05pbiWBPM8.Ngac4VAmRU ZGQARRmBv7dCXTQoPNcR2PLJrGFgPL_8qfZ5m23ptRe3jDSxctK6HGAjxW2j BBrgPWFpW5TfwnS2iWypvSSPdZmxYnC1Rjk41YOt_RiBLwtIbsOxbMf0M2eF vLoIW.ep1HAxRIhbJFJ8H0CkF0FAb1YPB8U2byKEPf1Cnq0GKk2FLKMXzc2z bDrfU1HGZOK5QEB3HBcPSi117hNP2q8tyYw_0arYvHixbPB7SPlXPlviuRpS jzc6J.qf3SCVGg779YeimXXNpye_8NjpRsIJ8BMxi.GVWec.5NHsq6wGiM3J Kig-- 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 20:35:15 +0000 UTC User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:35:12 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Tim Chown Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Discovery requirements for Smart Energy Profile 2.0 (SEP 2.0) In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: mdnsext@ietf.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: [Roll] Discovery requirements for Smart Energy Profile 2.0 (SEP 2.0) X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:35:22 -0000 Hi Tim, Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Alliance Core Stack Group which developed ZigBee IP in support of Smart Energy Profile 2.0. Here is a synopsis of the requirements: 1) Support Resource Discovery over a topology that includes Wi-Fi, HomePlug AV and GP and ZigBee IP (ZigBee IP is a multi-hop solution using ROLL RPL) connected via border routers 2) No device vendor wanted responsibility for a centralized DNS or uPNP repository that would be guaranteed to exist in all deployment scenarios. Ideally then services (resources) are self describing and locate-able through client directed queries (DNS-SD was a great solution for this) 3) mDNS was a great choice then for discovery, however, due to the use of ROLL RPL (or really any multi-hop route over solution), the use of link locals would not guarantee discovery of all services (resources). Hence, the extension of mDNS with this now outdated draft (captured in the requirements Kerry created for mdnsext I believe): http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynn-dnsext-site-mdns-01 The DNS-SD draft (RFC 6763) was used in our application without change. We would have welcomed the use of mDNS (RFC 6762) but that would not work with ULAs (which we had to use due to the multi-hop subnet) Again, in some settings there could be a box doing DNS (as long as that platform was good with other vendor solutions posting DNS records into it!). In some settings (where say the electricity meter is the only common platform), most utilities don't want responsibility (or the risk) in having untrusted devices posting anything to them. I like the ideas in Homenet around gathering service information into centralized DNS repositories where such a service exists. By the way, if ULA's continue to be the addressing mechanism, then there are a couple of additional issues: 1) In a border router, clear rules on the propagation of ULA prefixes (eg, which interfaces, ideally those that face inward in the site topology and not to the ISP!) 2) What to do if a border router discovers the existance of other ULA prefixes I think these topics were detailed in this old draft presented in V6OPS sometime ago: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbst-v6ops-cpeenhancements-00 Don On 7/25/13 1:11 PM, "Tim Chown" wrote: >On 25 Jul 2013, at 19:03, Don Sturek wrote: > >> Hi Ulrich, >> >> Let me say as an implementer of ROLL RPL (and Trickle Multicast) the >>topic >> of multi-link subnets and the general topic of multicast address scope >> continues to be a major concern. For example, we needed to extend mDNS >>to >> cover site specific addressing for this reason as well as need to define >> another draft describing ULA prefix delegation rules and forwarding >>rules >> for border routers (yet to be done). > >Hi, > >It would be great to get requirements for this - hopefully this can be >raised in the dnssdext BoF next week, and contributed into the >draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements-02 work by Kerry and Stuart. Currently >the dnssdext charter includes this use case. > >Tim From cabo@tzi.org Thu Jul 25 14:33:26 2013 Return-Path: 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 0356721F859A; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:33:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 hyU71SimJYpx; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB5321F8528; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:33:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6PLXE7K028674; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:33:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890BA4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.11.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B1E34F7; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:33:14 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:33:13 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3C27A5ED-8104-49DB-8320-E9D76FBF8834@tzi.org> References: To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Multi-Link Subnets via /128 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:33:26 -0000 On Jul 25, 2013, at 22:09, Don Sturek wrote: > My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that = it > solves the problem simply by saying "don't allocate link locals". = The > issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off = of > link locals). It would be easy to run mDNS in a larger multicast scope than = link-local. (I'm ignoring scaling limitations here, which are not that relevant in a = home as long as you have enough power for everyone. If you don't, mDNS = wasn't the right answer in the first place.) But first, you would need to run a multicast routing protocol. That appears to be the larger problem with running mDNS in a = multi-subnet network domain. I happen to believe that running a DNS-SD style service discovery = protocol across subnets is significantly easier than running multicast = routing across subnets and then running mDNS on that multicast routing. I'm not sure the RFC 5889 model is creating any problem here that we = didn't already have as soon as we started to do routing. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jul 25 14:37:44 2013 Return-Path: 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 2952321F853A; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.044 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.555, 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 OStCvNwusq8f; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C2E21F852D; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35ADE20168; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:43:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 5585163A88; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4357763A7C; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:36:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man\@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [Roll] Multi-Link Subnets via /128 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:37:44 -0000 --=-=-= Don Sturek wrote: > Note I changed the title on the thread...... Thank you. I would like to know what a multi-link subnet via /128 means. > My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it > solves the problem simply by saying "don't allocate link locals". The > issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off of > link locals). 1) mDNS doesn't have to use link locals, it can, and does distribute ULAs and GUAs v6 addresses just fine. 2) sdnsext might well fix mDNS to run across multiple subnets, not just a multi-link subnet. > Some questions: > 1) Would you recommend then the allocation of ULA's with a /128 (as > opposed to globals). There are a lot of applications that really only > need to communicate within a residence and don't really have a need in > having all devices using globals Yes to ULAs or to NCN's GUAs... but I understand the question. > 2) If we use ULA's, there does not seem to be guidance around which > interfaces to perform prefix delegation on and which should not > (specifically, I am thinking of rules that a border router would use as to > where to issue PIOs in a RPL sense) My reading/understanding/coding is that a border router which thinks it is grounded (G=1) should issue PIOs. > 3) And of course if there ended up being more than one border router, > there is also not guidance on how to combine or proxy ULA prefixes (maybe > this topic could be a Homenet solution....) homenet might provide a solution outside of the RPL space for deciding who will be the root ULA provider and how that might get distributed, but that won't help many RPL/LLN deployments. > In case anyone is wondering, our initial application deployment using > ZigBee IP was Smart Energy Profile 2.0 (SEP 2.0). There was a > requirement to perform service discovery without a centralized repository > (since it was a multivendor deployment where no device manufacturer wanted > responsibility for a centralized DNS). mDNS (extended to use ULAs) was > our choice. It would seem with a /128, we would still need the same > extensions to mDNS. We plan to support Wi-Fi, HomePlug Power Line > Carrier and ZigBee IP in a combined network topology within the home. I assume you used trickle-mcast to propogate the mDNS. Across those three links types, did you have a single ULA/64? How did the gateways between the media types know that they were not at a scope-3 boundary? -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfGaSoqHRg3pndX9AQKA3AP/YijmKsq/bw0WsrRxUyMtMruY+wM3u5+P f9UppetogJ0zivt2WEqf5J+xJBEeypskj/k5plDoyBaW1CqLyd6vA9A5UbwdThnW W0KmhjUyvYFFI9fbmso33jCTchZHEz4MJW4fJOHLrLwUfiJ5yyMetOgGp2xg7pd8 xo8N0EbuhUk= =BR6r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Jul 25 13:12:16 2013 Return-Path: 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 D292F21F936F; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:12:16 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 qaMOPX7WBYbB; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF53621F9346; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6PKC7VN019500; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:12:07 +0100 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk r6PKC7VN019500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1374783127; bh=BOAf2BlHtRpeD3i7YDjbcqeVhGQ=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=z5zeGdaEAmo69UgXtTzd5kXPhaL2drV0uTYmvbEdtYSPrlo+HB3mAKo3miDYpPriP YtdkRqWuO4aTLoA/2ddn0PuJII8+Z15QZVIDE+7jzSuHJmJdlpf7A+oygBWsV97G0G 50scel5fudK9PyyrdgCeEjGuVYLU0NJnq3ZlJ+A4= Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id p6OLC70544563261bH ret-id none; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:12:07 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.110] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6PKBgWV005555 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:11:43 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) From: Tim Chown In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:11:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <1896F191-4448-41AF-BC56-E643371BCC4E@ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-smtpf-Report: sid=p6OLC7054456326100; tid=p6OLC70544563261bH; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0 X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: r6PKC7VN019500 X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:41:03 -0700 Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome (was: Re: 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:12:16 -0000 On 25 Jul 2013, at 19:03, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Ulrich, >=20 > Let me say as an implementer of ROLL RPL (and Trickle Multicast) the = topic > of multi-link subnets and the general topic of multicast address scope > continues to be a major concern. For example, we needed to extend = mDNS to > cover site specific addressing for this reason as well as need to = define > another draft describing ULA prefix delegation rules and forwarding = rules > for border routers (yet to be done). Hi, It would be great to get requirements for this - hopefully this can be = raised in the dnssdext BoF next week, and contributed into the = draft-lynn-mdnsext-requirements-02 work by Kerry and Stuart. Currently = the dnssdext charter includes this use case. Tim= From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 25 15:02:56 2013 Return-Path: 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 8D22321F84B1 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 sXHMxlSgo9Jj for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm4-vm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm4-vm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FEB21F84F6 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.196.81.163] by nm4.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:02:50 -0000 Received: from [98.138.104.96] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:02:49 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp116.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:02:49 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374789769; bh=4hyyY2fkYoIBmqHBb0JEypRjWuYmoNh0DUqF30iprFA=; 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=nDcHJsQveo8qiM/grQqDlisUPobqZwdfiGzhT6CsFV9C5YT0ZtXxvQ1P6p9NODPrG46rFmnSkpQVKPHZ+NvJTRbjFMk7lKBBXwMdYp8D9gCpU5M1bjaP293G7UZ/X2obO1ImOKJz/EVeDKvoQe/pJuE6dwfr5yJaaldPjD5G8gQ= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 910617.81377.bm@smtp116.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: RV9UVEMVM1lom2SscQrawW9DdDS7qSDs.EfEDpX7TULnn2m SmqxoLFkyEzCGei_MfLX8IlUdNecNL7TFrEdqMHaCkedymJElp8aZ4CQ2Syp WOTf.j2NaBXWDwsmhzmWd2jJeYOFfG7wpOire4MPi8ygQ_O786Ujbi96Xss3 uffie.n5_l_a8UFwhOSKp3FVTRlYvSB4yN_jfjE5JPmMogv.04rcduTHdGlR jyCZ7qpUJVYdnA0MPGpIF2Tkkw_J61cxPx5uZedm069Wew7c5ryHt7.WW_sM R6bhZURF_yRjWRyFRAJYjvFZJsOXA4noMIff3VBtgakqgRjLvebZ69p_UBMA t_qb8.lIjc7kzEGq7p7ew3GlK.epT3kHCKYgy_w_6_UCu7PgTJIn26dXPt7V zNc_pYnxdoMIZBhLDdQuCTpxv4LmqkD0J_uYZJlbf3r81ZKHEIkI5BTMdAny 37SROZyng_K6aNnZEh_qI2y7iB_hOlBELWSCoTdl14C_gQesng282ulHJZIf cxGjhtFthIgW_j8BNESA- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@67.124.200.231 with login) by smtp116.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2013 22:02:49 +0000 UTC User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:01:24 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Multi-Link Subnets via /128 In-Reply-To: <9271.1374788173@sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Roll] Multi-Link Subnets via /128 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:02:56 -0000 Hi Michael, We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a few subtleties in the mDNS draft that are really focused only on correct link local operation. Here are a few (from RFC 6762): 1) Section 3.1 Any DNS query for a name ending with ".local." MUST be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 (or its IPv6 equivalent FF02::FB) 2) Section 4 Any DNS query for a name ending with "254.169.in-addr.arpa." MUST be sent to the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 or the mDNS IPv6 multicast address FF02::FB. 3) Section 11 All Multicast DNS responses (including responses sent via unicast) SHOULD be sent with IP TTL set to 255. This is recommended to provide backwards-compatibility with older Multicast DNS queriers (implementing a draft version of this document, posted in February 2004) that check the IP TTL on reception to determine whether the packet originated on the local link. These older queriers discard all packets with TTLs other than 255. 4) Also Section 11 A host sending Multicast DNS queries to a link-local destination address (including the 224.0.0.251 and FF02::FB link-local multicast addresses) MUST only accept responses to that query that originate from the local link, and silently discard any other response packets. 5) Again in Section 11 The test for whether a response originated on the local link is done in two ways: * All responses received with a destination address in the IP header that is the mDNS IPv4 link-local multicast address 224.0.0.251 or the mDNS IPv6 link-local multicast address FF02::FB are necessarily deemed to have originated on the local link, regardless of source IP address. This is essential to allow devices to work correctly and reliably in unusual configurations, such as multiple logical IP subnets overlayed on a single link, or in cases of severe misconfiguration, where devices are physically connected to the same link, but are currently misconfigured with completely unrelated IP addresses and subnet masks. * For responses received with a unicast destination address in the IP header, the source IP address in the packet is checked to see if it is an address on a local subnet. An IPv4 source address is determined to be on a local subnet if, for (one of) the address(es) configured on the interface receiving the packet, (I & M) == (P & M), where I and M are the interface address and subnet mask respectively, P is the source IP address from the packet, '&' represents the bitwise logical 'and' operation, and '==' represents a bitwise equality test. An IPv6 source address is determined to be on the local link if, for any of the on-link IPv6 prefixes on the interface receiving the packet (learned via IPv6 router advertisements or otherwise configured on the host), the first 'n' bits of the IPv6 source address match the first 'n' bits of the prefix address, where 'n' is the length of the prefix being considered. Don On 7/25/13 2:36 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > > >Don Sturek wrote: > > > Note I changed the title on the thread...... > >Thank you. >I would like to know what a multi-link subnet via /128 means. > > > My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is >that it > > solves the problem simply by saying "don't allocate link locals". >The > > issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate >off of > > link locals). > >1) mDNS doesn't have to use link locals, it can, and does distribute ULAs >and > GUAs v6 addresses just fine. > >2) sdnsext might well fix mDNS to run across multiple subnets, not just > a multi-link subnet. > > > Some questions: > > 1) Would you recommend then the allocation of ULA's with a /128 (as > > opposed to globals). There are a lot of applications that really >only > > need to communicate within a residence and don't really have a need >in > > having all devices using globals > >Yes to ULAs or to NCN's GUAs... but I understand the question. > > > 2) If we use ULA's, there does not seem to be guidance around which > > interfaces to perform prefix delegation on and which should not > > (specifically, I am thinking of rules that a border router would >use as to > > where to issue PIOs in a RPL sense) > >My reading/understanding/coding is that a border router which thinks it is >grounded (G=1) should issue PIOs. > > > 3) And of course if there ended up being more than one border >router, > > there is also not guidance on how to combine or proxy ULA prefixes >(maybe > > this topic could be a Homenet solution....) > >homenet might provide a solution outside of the RPL space for deciding who >will be the root ULA provider and how that might get distributed, but that >won't help many RPL/LLN deployments. > > > In case anyone is wondering, our initial application deployment >using > > ZigBee IP was Smart Energy Profile 2.0 (SEP 2.0). There was a > > requirement to perform service discovery without a centralized >repository > > (since it was a multivendor deployment where no device manufacturer >wanted > > responsibility for a centralized DNS). mDNS (extended to use ULAs) >was > > our choice. It would seem with a /128, we would still need the same > > extensions to mDNS. We plan to support Wi-Fi, HomePlug Power Line > > Carrier and ZigBee IP in a combined network topology within the >home. > >I assume you used trickle-mcast to propogate the mDNS. >Across those three links types, did you have a single ULA/64? >How did the gateways between the media types know that they were not at a >scope-3 boundary? > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 25 15:06:55 2013 Return-Path: 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 3099D21F9223 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:06:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, 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 jYj-ysKUsCuf for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm24-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm24-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6054121F91CB for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.196.81.164] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:06:35 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.174] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:06:35 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:06:35 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374789995; bh=GHf8utqeWGuPIQv9ph5cccVxWl4nr80/95GU1IHTu2Y=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=0zFEjCDysRDHyDSHpjLAV26Vh5U6TzNeUy5tS7CTYkIhnBPV2xfNB1fNyCAUZklqnSzdLD9MryvDHSOzOGDv5EiAfTYjh5PcwlysjXrzopsKxblCC9LSemoTTAyAyfwB7tp1HOiflZTNtPdDtNRweJQTt5jQn/joWyOPHhrh6eI= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 470924.4388.bm@smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: zbXQoX4VM1kVXJuXTXN632.tBKWro_DQFBrjPE0iW8gQ8Vn NnGji012jPMU9Z0da7FcWjqkzAcefQ1P23gx4WR7ekpJgsgUdb.YhQkIM5ez eYjL.uTAA8bj7UEC_OxsVY5D4e.qYVVhUSSQzfvj9y0jPB3wImceQd32BQ_X Fy0BE2UhiIAwRGfhtzQCivOlajZuKpOihX4cxr9zX.gDzOJxXU1.GOXewVxA PNaxN7oCBjtf3KOaNjMBQhMcZMllEMjIrT9HtUzC6Awb847fgfA6YWh6v8ea nVyb5qDIoKNozOdb_m1lt5fAAmHKzg7H7ZAPYRCXYG6h3C_zvRXLG5ZCqlGx E0BF35XK3NX40wZOtdJUtsmxV85jIqhfYkQkRsBBAVdxdU2_tEZfkUYS7BKj A1k0GAI8r9fI.UPKnW0DEG7HFzSI5zm8MI0SnC5s9v2WiyzFc_wbMkB1DFOE hqPChlbxFmV0.9kuGBo3EV_l451EDKrtsaYTg_F9wEClJf7TzFo30cJ82YpX eJdIX2RSH4MepHxqghWexIgRCnstfEm5sL_oPJOoLyLifEt.CNOf7v9STaNi u_3W3PlC2tHzL2hpx8Vw7tS7icomhAgkO X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@67.124.200.231 with login) by smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2013 15:06:35 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:05:18 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Carsten Bormann Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Multi-Link Subnets via /128 In-Reply-To: <3C27A5ED-8104-49DB-8320-E9D76FBF8834@tzi.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Multi-Link Subnets via /128 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:06:55 -0000 Hi Carsten, Actually, we have done quite a bit of testing using site scoped multicast and the Extended version of mDNS and it seems to work quite well (mainly since we changed little in mDNS and only addressed the issues of using a multicast scope other than link local) Don On 7/25/13 2:33 PM, "Carsten Bormann" wrote: >On Jul 25, 2013, at 22:09, Don Sturek wrote: > >> My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it >> solves the problem simply by saying "don't allocate link locals". The >> issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off of >> link locals). > >It would be easy to run mDNS in a larger multicast scope than link-local. >(I'm ignoring scaling limitations here, which are not that relevant in a >home as long as you have enough power for everyone. If you don't, mDNS >wasn't the right answer in the first place.) > >But first, you would need to run a multicast routing protocol. >That appears to be the larger problem with running mDNS in a multi-subnet >network domain. > >I happen to believe that running a DNS-SD style service discovery >protocol across subnets is significantly easier than running multicast >routing across subnets and then running mDNS on that multicast routing. > >I'm not sure the RFC 5889 model is creating any problem here that we >didn't already have as soon as we started to do routing. > >Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jul 25 15:09:05 2013 Return-Path: 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 A75AD21F84BB; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:09:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, 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 8zDuxQkoEMnV; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8202221F849C; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CDC20168; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:14:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C63F0A902A; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B233063A7C; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:07:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Don Sturek In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Multi-Link Subnets via /128 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:09:05 -0000 --=-=-= Don Sturek wrote: > We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a few > subtleties in the mDNS draft that are really focused only on correct link > local operation. Here are a few (from RFC 6762): Ah, I understand now, and I agree. I thought you were saying that mDNS replies could not have ULAs in their answer sections. I agree that all of the things you mention have to be adjusted in order to permit mDNS to work over MPL. My question remains: > I would like to know what a multi-link subnet via /128 means. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfGhqIqHRg3pndX9AQLSOQP+N1z+wrU/JqN97d+GP/uMAviep5FnCdq1 H3X8UbpMv0qNjN681yXEyKWrCFjaD4orUopv+h0QTMddlUSSGS9UgojaH1IfhEvR taOX6m/QtPEyxEQSVx9Hy77hHEe1/ZX3giCnyrFsmPfSYlITeb31qLQr4Ro/HS2W kw1nf21/bxc= =WQIn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jul 25 15:53:31 2013 Return-Path: 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 310AF21F8FA1 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:53:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, 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 Qcy07cHJ55k9 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm18-vm9.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm18-vm9.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.62.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54D921F8EFE for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.39.60.169] by nm18.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:53:23 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.173] by tm5.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:53:23 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp107.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jul 2013 22:53:23 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374792803; bh=jkgJavOHlV3uJU8fneO9nBP84Ev7WAjOP5/0fwGIKCA=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=IE6qVPMpKXw1fBKgq/2fqSRI/TbRtMRnAEmMIgg6kPvjzLrAeiaJhr+6dsJCnCbABFrsaZUyfrbniPnV7exA9kX7tW+PgjkDRewSvbtJE2mCBD/V9B0TiN6mgZ/+dB6JRi903kyAZMK9ZjbIDM9nMLMGbG5scxo2w04ZxcxkT2s= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 538432.66611.bm@smtp107.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: jeajAgoVM1kf2wcZZ00ge8sQQYOvM7uT1UAHmOoOzD1oplE VIlQ208VY.uT59C1wfZa.hGAdrgCzK.zyb7Zq41AphKzjA.nX9T8t9tkhub1 4Uck40Hi0aCR02Q_DFf9.8YFXrAcgtFIbqLF6fggQzTaiJupv_pPBnCuwIqB B9b0kEvqNiYWrvY6VQvgkUpIclY40rcywQWHKe1YAfT.GTVgC2F96LZhRhgI AgB3kJcSYW_Pkl3hEhrOdNfgYIaUwMR4vdCkZ33Ib6RPUnT.3g.erd3b8dto 8S66MogIYXdAlAtY3RxdT13LNB5hlJs6vE4OMErITdl8aw3nidBiOelICSPp nTsFugy.oKQk4oKX0bXD6vsjAhos0SnRFAHo1rPJVtsVABstxmxbaXvFztgw kXMccppxMi4AxJflNVAQpdpCVog1qn4prNSHAWBTERrNiLwXEQ76i.vZbIFq xvIHHhDzeFfc6QKtnNrLVU5_D0R39_LOatneI8e7gslQazK1CQFEgVPnBLac zR7T2z9r_C2T5l.i4_MI- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.0.4] (d.sturek@67.124.200.231 with login) by smtp107.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2013 15:53:23 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:50:53 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Multi-Link Subnets via /128 In-Reply-To: <14375.1374790058@sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Multi-Link Subnets via /128 X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:53:31 -0000 Hi Michael, I mispoke on the last point. Should have read: multi-link subnets versus allocating a /128 Don On 7/25/13 3:07 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > > >Don Sturek wrote: > > We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a >few > > subtleties in the mDNS draft that are really focused only on >correct link > > local operation. Here are a few (from RFC 6762): > >Ah, I understand now, and I agree. >I thought you were saying that mDNS replies could not have ULAs in their >answer sections. > >I agree that all of the things you mention have to be adjusted in order to >permit mDNS to work over MPL. > >My question remains: > > > I would like to know what a multi-link subnet via /128 means. > > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Fri Jul 26 00:46:23 2013 Return-Path: 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 CA9F921F92B7 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:46:23 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 TZjv7oKTiLLW for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D7521F92E7 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [94.116.93.160] (helo=[10.38.244.181]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1V2cit-0005Hf-D7 for roll@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:45:59 +0100 Message-ID: <51F22938.8050803@gridmerge.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:46:00 +0100 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <3896.1374761225@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37C0D96@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37C0D96@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms040009050507060004030706" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com 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: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:46:23 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms040009050507060004030706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 to all Ralph says below. I support draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-00 with the addition of=20 using MPL as an example. Robert On 25/07/2013 15:46, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: > On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:07 PM 7/25/13, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>>> Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>>>>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong ter= m. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 c= ase 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. >> I think that we agree about what we want. > Sorry, I disagree. I simply want to release the scope from "(reserved)= " state and write down whatever constraints needed for consistency with o= ther scopes. > > Jinmei-san (if I may make an inference from his e-mail) supports writin= g this definition into and made the helpful suggestion to add the MPL us= e case as an example, which I support. > >> What I see you saying is that you want a definition which I find rathe= r >> (technically) vague, in anticipation of uses which are not yet well de= fined, >> and may never come to pass. >> >> I'm saying, let's make the MPL scope-3 use case clear and precise, and= if >> another situation comes along for which scope-3 is appropriate, let's = extend >> the definition at that time. >> >> Otherwise, this reminds of site-local scope: >> We defined it in what we thought were clear terms for a human, but w= hich >> turned out to be too vague for machines, with the result that it cou= ld never >> be discovered/used. >> >> Meanwhile, I think that MPL is hung up waiting for this to be properly= >> clarified. > Really? I suggest MPL is hung up waiting author revisions for several = last call comments, including this one - none of which have been addresse= d since the last call back in March. This issue could be addressed direc= tly in the roll WG by explicitly writing down the behavior of scope 0x03 = for MPL forwarding in the MPL spec, which is, in my opinion, where it bel= ongs. > > My point is that, in my opinion, reserving scope 0x03 for MPL is not th= e right thing to do. > > - Ralph > >> -- >> Michael Richardson , 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 > --------------ms040009050507060004030706 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILUDCC BRowggQCoAMCAQICEG0Z6qcZT2ozIuYiMnqqcd4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoT FVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg RW1haWwwHhcNMTEwNDI4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UE ChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBAJKEhFtLV5jUXi+LpOFAyKNTWF9mZfEyTvefMn1V0HhMVbdClOD5J3EHxcZppLkyxPFA GpDMJ1Zifxe1cWmu5SAb5MtjXmDKokH2auGj/7jfH0htZUOMKi4rYzh337EXrMLaggLW1DJq 1GdvIBOPXDX65VSAr9hxCh03CgJQU2yVHakQFLSZlVkSMf8JotJM3FLb3uJAAVtIaN3FSrTg 7SQfOq9xXwfjrL8UO7AlcWg99A/WF1hGFYE8aIuLgw9teiFX5jSw2zJ+40rhpVJyZCaRTqWS D//gsWD9Gm9oUZljjRqLpcxCm5t9ImPTqaD8zp6Q30QZ9FxbNboW86eb/8ECAwEAAaOCAUsw ggFHMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR6E04AdFvG eGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADARBgNV HSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwWAYDVR0fBFEwTzBNoEugSYZHaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwdAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEaDBmMD0GCCsGAQUFBzAChjFodHRwOi8vY3J0LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVRO QWRkVHJ1c3RDbGllbnRfQ0EuY3J0MCUGCCsGAQUFBzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC51c2VydHJ1 c3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCF1r54V1VtM39EUv5C1QaoAQOAivsNsv1Kv/av QUn1G1rF0q0bc24+6SZ85kyYwTAo38v7QjyhJT4KddbQPTmGZtGhm7VNm2+vKGwdr+XqdFqo 2rHA8XV6L566k3nK/uKRHlZ0sviN0+BDchvtj/1gOSBH+4uvOmVIPJg9pSW/ve9g4EnlFsjr P0OD8ODuDcHTzTNfm9C9YGqzO/761Mk6PB/tm/+bSTO+Qik5g+4zaS6CnUVNqGnagBsePdIa XXxHmaWbCG0SmYbWXVcHG6cwvktJRLiQfsrReTjrtDP6oDpdJlieYVUYtCHVmdXgQ0BCML7q peeU0rD+83X5f27nMIIGLjCCBRagAwIBAgIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQUFADCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4G A1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENP TU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMTA5 MDIwMDAwMDBaFw0xNDA5MDEyMzU5NTlaMIIBNzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxEDAOBgNVBBETB1dG NCA0V0ExFzAVBgNVBAgTDldlc3QgWW9ya3NoaXJlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlXYWtlZmllbGQxFDAS BgNVBAkTC0dyYW5nZSBNb29yMR8wHQYDVQQJExY4OSBHcmVlbmZpZWxkIENyZXNjZW50MRcw FQYDVQQKEw5HcmlkbWVyZ2UgTHRkLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrSXNzdWVkIHRocm91Z2ggR3JpZG1l cmdlIEx0ZC4gRS1QS0kgTWFuYWdlcjEfMB0GA1UECxMWQ29ycG9yYXRlIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFp bDEWMBQGA1UEAxMNUm9iZXJ0IENyYWdpZTEqMCgGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYbcm9iZXJ0LmNyYWdp ZUBncmlkbWVyZ2UuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArcThqvLe WU1Q1ZJmnb+2UQSwOQKWok3A1Mwk582AdvwaAQyBFliPyJ0kXJqtwNBoZvk+3WJr0QA5ZRr+ J0x3sXVpcxadojP2HNzy1gsgDtIGG8ltoU4vmX1A8BTlOIUT+Pg8p/bSruxV0vz0CR8ho2hs R0Zi5vU+rQKNmbgufbkWhlQnMEYjknemscLQfw1YZz90ta67doNDujFy6+X6I06HpjudgMYx 8bdsNS5xVFFwuBA1eqNQra+xLzhCOeX9PPB/zK68qdNhrni3WPYG9EhSt4Dzk+xIz9hj7wrU ZIVXDTPsY8qbUSBVpwmzI5lCHPgzurH1OK7WwgpDSsl5pwIDAQABo4IB1TCCAdEwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswHQYDVR0OBBYEFBCOXNH+lDm8U9gy3b3bRvrx vKgrMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwME BggrBgEFBQcDAjBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEDBTArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1o dHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8v Y3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVt YWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29t b2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5j cnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAmBgNVHREEHzAdgRty b2JlcnQuY3JhZ2llQGdyaWRtZXJnZS5jb20wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAD6b/O0LkPav kR4Znoqxg0Ad7M3duDm4uzfrlX4ecgq56Ccdwd+3Tayz7Ewej30woVMmTKkA/NKRaCd0wVM9 8seF/oZjXKO7o1SH27igRnGSWjCoWXsdwJGfZbYnvcIIhhsxJoCPNbeSR7C0PAFDKsP3xrJy MHMljIJsoRbZu/fnYNyFWh9OXf7fYJOGmKDKAhSabUGfhY7umvU9d/YTqo02Q6YzC7d4zPNG 1a75AuHSEchf6GdKqycG38I5y9jlDaYfXspoS3PlTNCIeZONbOSMZgftnNEVKq+SWytFqyG/ 8+dwpm/a12KMex5J8iHwaUKj++2O2rAFNjDDqXpeEYoxggQZMIIEFQIBATCBqDCBkzELMAkG A1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9y ZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQg QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjAJ BgUrDgMCGgUAoIICRTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xMzA3MjYwNzQ2MDBaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSfsM5UadMpyBUHBmzAulXSu0AazzBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVy IE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1p dGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEFwxUNvELajLmHIeX9p072YwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGroIGoMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxm b3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBcMVDbxC2oy5hyHl/adO9m MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBABHAfrF45/uEtOrFZ6gc58o+a8pedHbQvcgvO1MxGuvHPxNC L57+/xqwytvoMaQ49tRODU94FkRrCDBq6Kr5Z0vmWTA4pg1Rtk7DLnIfDRAacp50dxZKwqnn ngFSHQlkwWAyhuQYtV5S7hEFOrthd2unaSajlNogsH2z+/7B4CyAOxdKpbFRAKYYXJMvJqqj XeNOuJhGu+00l8E/V17sV1rga8nkU+VHsIQnL/Q5Dcpb5ZTtrfPJprhabiJCCtzXBoNy66XA 14Oxr/ayvyMhx4CrSRjLzgExoUb2I+bekRIa3oEMSRKHTpkHKgoWjjmXEhWug8gQjrBa3whx JxnCy28AAAAAAAA= --------------ms040009050507060004030706-- From emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com Fri Jul 26 01:50:47 2013 Return-Path: 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 75C8E21F847C; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 3f3xXn3rdrBI; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B3521F893E; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so6698237oah.24 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=tVUgw7LV/elUiXwNrPiU0LzVCKkxX8HdnNxaYtXDcfQ=; b=MS9k7/jm3zafQmP3QOVcFQpSx370Nz7zZQ+4WqRQijwbw2WIPHKQ90Ye41Exdf1+FL lAilnJ/SjIWRORGbm5tugQBrC7lw2WUiQYgOKWg7pHpu3NgysdjpOpFBSyzdKHXXfxjm f60ozYNYScAK1rSlzOvuO3e5HRDw5PHNk4Aq97IOoAXcPaKV1tNRC4rF0MfKXBYsH4Mo xQbfktEfYg59DKB0ob5cC4VOZyuD4C89HL0ZY8tklERCk4fHTui9qki8ah3MD3cEJ4X1 73c9dc4nA19qAuQoc8bWJHChIRMQuQIersVfnjGH+l7Yc7JOfnqgQDb5zWlEKifthK/S 1Yvg== X-Received: by 10.182.176.34 with SMTP id cf2mr40726752obc.45.1374828645511; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.82.133 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:50:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <23549.1374781215@sandelman.ca> References: <23549.1374781215@sandelman.ca> From: Emmanuel Baccelli Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:50:25 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Y6d_l4PKpGleSKZEtKvWBnGGALA Message-ID: To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1cf820af8e204e2663d33 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:50:47 -0000 --e89a8ff1cf820af8e204e2663d33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Michael, actually, MANET protocols have been working for years to provide mesh-over routing, without multi-link subnets. To understand better the "link" properties you have to deal with, you could take a look at this draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-02 As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTOCONF was that IP links as we know them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous wireless multi-hop environment. This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which essentially bans the use of subnet prefixes in this environment. And without subnet prefixes, what is the purpose of an IP link? Not much... Best, Emmanuel On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked. > > I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking > without creating multi-link subnets. > > It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on > the > interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere. > That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets. > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --e89a8ff1cf820af8e204e2663d33 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Michael,

actually, MANET protocols h= ave been working for years to provide mesh-over routing, without multi-link= subnets.

To understand better the &qu= ot;link" properties you have to deal with, you could take a look at th= is draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-manet-multiho= p-communication-02

As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTO= CONF was that IP links as we know them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous= wireless multi-hop environment.

This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which essentially bans the use = of subnet prefixes in this environment. And without subnet prefixes, what i= s the purpose of an IP link? Not much...

Best,

Emmanuel




On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Michael Richardson <= mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked.

I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking without creating multi-link subnets.

It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on th= e
interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere.
That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works



_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--e89a8ff1cf820af8e204e2663d33-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Jul 26 07:13:01 2013 Return-Path: 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 0CE4321F8A50; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:13:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.123 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.476, 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 I4R0+nrTTsez; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE0821F880F; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F23120192; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 3135AA902A; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5EFB9083; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:11:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , 6man@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <51F22938.8050803@gridmerge.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <3896.1374761225@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37C0D96@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <51F22938.8050803@gridmerge.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:13:01 -0000 --=-=-= Having had a number of private exchanges with Ralph, I support the document as worded. It was not clear to me before that trickle-mcast will be *expected* to define what it means for the scope to be "defined automatically from the network topology" I thought that further clarification of the use of scope-3 within MPL would be considered an infringment upon 6man's charter. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfKDk4qHRg3pndX9AQJvYAP/QVJDMzMCCh3ZJLw/pvmNV09P+rWUc1bz TvE+a+y8A1tvr/cxAUKfMoHqIDOGLJvJ7umaEoTT6oitAfAwk8uIURbjYmFqU3Nd jrUjXhO1cPfSg5oR3UD0PWfkBQWbAtdq7UfeCPVnMPOuHu+3P1vw0aTHExsX4qd3 /WXvwEZ1CPY= =3L4w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jul 26 10:26:37 2013 Return-Path: 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 B4E3A21F9B12 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.668 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 4cnSBaYQ8Spp for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm9-vm3.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm9-vm3.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FE321F9B0E for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.196.81.165] by nm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2013 17:26:30 -0000 Received: from [98.139.221.56] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2013 17:26:30 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp109.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2013 17:26:30 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374859590; bh=/QtaI59lGbY314eGgXst5h0br7lafPVZZ+fh1zONYS8=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type; b=rhSXFMm8Mi9GLWPPyLa/2O09MSVOMrEVGx3T+VEHCv4LdqsAwAKVN/kQDxqitedNna0faiw+RxejcgD8GGHBJaAW2tKEZLKsyS6byyciBmXJo+JJuXp2WT53IZoxIPn/dsyS+IjA8Bx/Y/ENAAsmm8BLuy1w9v1BzpX8ciXL2Wg= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 350524.13993.bm@smtp109.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: s84kIosVM1lA.JAfNc2odWdcjX8lt2aciSVC_XLbXVdxQx0 b3Wg9hVvmiLrzoa0sthANMhr5yeI.yFXYDZdPDrfWVSlvHRj0w5dMSJBcERY 991RrfWA_utLGT98Y59sXTbTds.uLuEtACCq3cypXcr2Y7Jp3XIFm.a4Lj6F KT0EN4RlgweQnYReb4qmPiVKI3yeEySlHeiI2l2SUQ.UqV.7I7HLnPljkljL jdaRnd1gsChCQIJmQHEnhnr5Oy2lAGw0Z5us2pKcY61y9UFToazR4dFul8hV 9y3xz6KucwnLhzL.XvAeXMMar3ysZT94m84RIYHC0NWDTsOHyonSPIdsJkra i.snupb7YJWZukuv0IAfM_E1K2cTzZujaD892SBmHU3NjgtOwgsOS.KYaE_2 AHQmheRqkl2R0fVIc2yd.05.f5J77d5u3OnMUklszdERZ3cZ.xRZAcvc7GRK nOiHrXNKBaewBmtuQmQ_Al7yXtpSClp9oeJqm4DrCZyA05AsXmpAbUHlGR2S x9YR1Q6eEaJSFwQNe X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.1.1.129] (d.sturek@66.27.60.174 with login) by smtp109.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2013 10:26:30 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:25:15 -0700 From: Don Sturek To: Emmanuel Baccelli , Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3457679189_257412" Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:26:37 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3457679189_257412 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Emmanuel, I think if route over protocols are to adhere to RFC 5889, much more work needs to go into making ULAs useful. For our project we used: 6LoWPAN (RFC 4944), 6LoWPAN-ND (RFC 6775), ROLL RPL (RFC 650), mDNS (RFC 6762) with some extensions to use ULAs (among others) and I can say that simply not using link locals with RFC 5889 would not yield a robust IoT solution (at least this is my opinion having worked on this for 4 years now) Don From: Emmanuel Baccelli Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 1:50 AM To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome Hi Michael, actually, MANET protocols have been working for years to provide mesh-over routing, without multi-link subnets. To understand better the "link" properties you have to deal with, you could take a look at this draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-02 As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTOCONF was that IP links as we know them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous wireless multi-hop environment. This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which essentially bans the use of subnet prefixes in this environment. And without subnet prefixes, what is the purpose of an IP link? Not much... Best, Emmanuel On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked. > > I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking > without creating multi-link subnets. > > It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on the > interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere. > That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets. > > -- > Michael Richardson >, > Sandelman Software Works > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --B_3457679189_257412 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Emmanuel,
I think if route over protocols are to adhere to RFC 5889, much = more work needs to go into making ULAs useful.

For = our project we used:    6LoWPAN (RFC 4944), 6LoWPAN-ND (RFC 6775),= ROLL RPL (RFC 650), mDNS (RFC 6762) with some extensions to use ULAs (among= others) and I can say that simply not using link locals with RFC 5889 would= not yield a robust IoT solution (at least this is my opinion having worked = on this for 4 years now)

Don



From: Emmanu= el Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccell= i@inria.fr>
Date: Friday, J= uly 26, 2013 1:50 AM
To: Routing O= ver Low power and Lossy networks <roll@iet= f.org>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@i= etf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll= ] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome

Hi Michael,


<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Michael Richardson = <m= cr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:

= Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked.

I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking without creating multi-link subnets.

It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on th= e
interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere.
That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sa= ndelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works



________________= _______________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://w= ww.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --B_3457679189_257412-- From jinmei@isc.org Fri Jul 26 00:54:22 2013 Return-Path: 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 424E421F8756; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:54:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 wlvXqhOFzA0n; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7761B21F87B7; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8EDC9465; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:54:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:54:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095CD160276; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 9kcLICq_2hj4; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4F0160275; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:57:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmx1.isc.org Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id d-2yytHNzKFI; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (99-105-57-202.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.105.57.202]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41412160051; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:53:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" In-Reply-To: <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37C0D96@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> References: <067.7473226c34e99536104b136c326ce300@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.6ab8f10970432e6f2bb367aa0b632dda@trac.tools.ietf.org> <23575.1373577247@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA3793403@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <4874.1373906541@sandelman.ca> <38A9423D-BBD7-48E9-846F-C1360BEFEE85@gmail.com> <51EEC0F2.9010601@gridmerge.com> <1374658706.80014.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <18208.1374677909@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BD071@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <1177.1374683864@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37BFCF7@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> <3896.1374761225@sandelman.ca> <4518F39EB578034D8C99A9B7776CDBA37C0D96@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:58:04 -0700 Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> 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 List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:54:22 -0000 At Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:46:45 +0000, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > I think that we agree about what we want. > > Sorry, I disagree. I simply want to release the scope from "(reserved)" state and write down whatever constraints needed for consistency with other scopes. > > Jinmei-san (if I may make an inference from his e-mail) supports writing this definition into and made the helpful suggestion to add the MPL use case as an example, which I support. I didn't have a strong opinion about which one is better: A: keep the definition of scope-3 generic (+ possibly show the MPL case as an example), or B: limit the definition to the MPL case for now (+ possibly extend it in future as we find more specific cases) My comment was that assuming the choice of keeping it generic is given, it would still be helpful if we give a specific example case. But, on thinking about it now, I think I have a leaning to approach A, because the concept of address scope itself is generic while the MPL case seems too specific. And, as long as the 6man-multicast-scopes document shows a specific example (so the definition won't be too vague) and states future cases should be defined in separate RFCs (as it does in the first sentence of Section 2 of the 00 version), it seems to address the concerns that approach B would try to address. Still not a strong opinion anyway, though. -- JINMEI, Tatuya From Richard.Kelsey@silabs.com Fri Jul 26 06:55:15 2013 Return-Path: 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 E61FA21F9929; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:55:15 -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 9jcPzLMUgli6; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from db8outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db8lp0188.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C70721F979E; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail206-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.247) by DB8EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.174.4.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:08 +0000 Received: from mail206-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail206-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BAE2E0404; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.238.53; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BY2PRD0712HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -4 X-BigFish: PS-4(zz9371IfadId79ah1432I217bIzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1de097hz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail206-db8: domain of silabs.com designates 157.56.238.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.238.53; envelope-from=Richard.Kelsey@silabs.com; helo=BY2PRD0712HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; Received: from mail206-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail206-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 1374846906442076_5477; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB8EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.254]) by mail206-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D94C20046; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0712HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.238.53) by DB8EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (10.174.4.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:03 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0712MB672.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.196]) by BY2PRD0712HT002.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.246.35]) with mapi id 14.16.0329.000; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:03 +0000 From: Richard Kelsey To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome Thread-Index: AQHOiW8hRTZW/S68x06bEju446IrDpl2p3iAgABT8b4= Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <23549.1374781215@sandelman.ca>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.48.253.81] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: silabs.com X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:58:04 -0700 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:55:16 -0000 From: Emmanuel Baccelli [Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:50 AM > As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTOCONF was that IP links as > we know them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous wireless multi-hop > environment. > = > This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which essentially bans > the use of subnet prefixes in this environment. And without subnet > prefixes, what is the purpose of an IP link? Not much... Hi Emmanuel, While I generally agree with what RFC 5889 says, its focus is on autoconfiguration. For example, the statement o There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are unique across multiple links, hence they can not be used to reliably identify routers. is true only if restricted to autoconfiguration mechanisms. To the extent that RFC 5889, which is informational, bans anything, it bans using autoconfiguration to configure addresses with subnet prefixes in this sort of network. It says nothing one way or the other about using, say, DHCPv6 or 6LoWPAN ND to do so. The whole multi-link subnet discussion is difficult because the term 'subnet' has different implications in different contexts. For example, RFC 5889 says: Subnet prefix configuration on such interfaces must thus not make any promises in terms of direct (one hop) IP connectivity to IP addresses other than that of the interface itself. This suggests the following principle: o no two such interfaces in the network should be configured with the same subnet prefix. An equally valid principle would have been: o subnet prefixes should not be used for on-link determination for such interfaces. Which you prefer depends on how much you consider on-link determination to be a fundamental aspect of subnet prefixes. For autoconfiguration it is a fundamental aspect; for routing, perhaps not. I think it makes sense to follow RFC 5889's recommendation and assign only /128 subnet prefixes to interfaces in an ad-hoc radio network. I also think it makes sense to arrange for those subnet prefixes to share a single /64 prefix and to use that fact at the routing layer. Whether or not this is a multi-link subnet depends on who you ask. -Richard Kelsey This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of th= e individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information= that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from= disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product= . If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any = use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is stric= tly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us= immediately by telephone and destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) = delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. = Thank you. From emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com Sat Jul 27 08:54:14 2013 Return-Path: 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 1BFB421F9A29; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:54:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.376 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, BAYES_05=-1.11, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 eE8G3Z-I5lkq; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x232.google.com (mail-oa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F94521F99DE; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k7so10152060oag.9 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=7LpStShdo1R8ONZpQqsixFaUqUgdB5XtPdsW87uWAqg=; b=GHfy31Ml3byP7SAKpDEu0ujsO7znC6DUH1TD72rYB2IH1tAW3Sus6yZByvWHRlkYyp 55s3yf6xXDMzlLKv1ZvrG8C7R97lr6OwAo5MrXbFbBmo1389IIrBjOl2J9pgeYsf4KUa OGLuw5/Q6bq+GE/4r+lj110+af5z0Yg25Vgr/cZdYsoT7t0eIAKWNJj3yhLLiVZRAQty mtftCrNJrwmZ2zOzh0A5XDoTPxx+Im1BnamLQhu7eSAJiWjCYLNEkxmmDs2ZpxPgEmQc oqZatjYQx/v4Zb+VWSQyA5QOaPEiztwZ2zuYF/H/yEilCAd1OopF9VVHoy8fMqNe9P9T eX2Q== X-Received: by 10.60.161.44 with SMTP id xp12mr52265901oeb.91.1374940453005; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:54:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.82.133 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Emmanuel Baccelli Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 17:53:52 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tTvz1-Exy2dK_GbJ-Y0Vt8tziS8 Message-ID: To: MANET IETF , ROLL WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184a2449f34504e28045e7 Subject: [Roll] MANIAC Challenge workshop X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:54:14 -0000 --089e01184a2449f34504e28045e7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, For those interested in mobile data offloading, tomorrow morning (Sunday) takes place the MANIAC Challenge workshop, at the IETF hotel, in room Tiergarten 1/2, from 9:00AM until lunch time. http://2013.maniacchallenge.org/program/ The workshop will feature talks by several cooperative forwarding strategies developers, as well as talks by Stan Ratliff on IETF standards work-in-progress related to cooperative mobile data offloading, and by Henning Rogge on Freifunk and community wireless mesh networking. Come check it out! Best, Emmanuel --089e01184a2449f34504e28045e7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

For those interested in m= obile data offloading, tomorrow morning (Sunday) takes place the MANIAC Cha= llenge workshop, at the IETF hotel, in room Tiergarten 1/2, from 9:00AM unt= il lunch time.=A0http:= //2013.maniacchallenge.org/program/

The workshop will feature talks by several = cooperative forwarding strategies developers, as well as talks by Stan Ratl= iff on IETF standards work-in-progress related to cooperative mobile data o= ffloading, and by Henning Rogge on Freifunk and community wireless mesh net= working.

Come check it out!

Best,

Emmanuel


--089e01184a2449f34504e28045e7-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Mon Jul 29 01:13:10 2013 Return-Path: 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 1EDA921F9DFB for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:13:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, 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 8CE0HGkk2lM3 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FFE21F9808 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD2920187; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 05:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id BEA9663A88; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9851963A7C; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:11:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: roll@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <082.a3c6d181235e95142a4efbdf979fe23b@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.a3c6d181235e95142a4efbdf979fe23b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, johui@cisco.com, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:13:11 -0000 --=-=-= roll issue tracker wrote: > Whether or not MPL is contained at the LBR is a deployment decision. > Personally, I think it should be, and other multicast forwarding should be > used in non-lossy networks. ... > These issues should be addressed in the Applicability statement. is there any disagreement here? -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfYjtIqHRg3pndX9AQIbXgP/RQ0YiXr4FhaXyQC+hmjsV1wOsEetKLra T4cGjLix5jXvOkeCIBcxQUxtKgrARgtRZS9EqtT6C+fjZwW16mjYfvMJfB0pBf1H 2nD7i1CQ47kkggHMVTufUrUcGB7NQQuVEW6NNlt39I3ydLq0yVdbfjSF0Pmhn92E hfw47Mm3ssI= =Lsyy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Mon Jul 29 06:28:21 2013 Return-Path: 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 6F82021F9F52 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 Z6pM6Byy2nWx for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CA421F9F3D for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j6so3550179oag.0 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=hzIsffsXvMVrSiytnz/7Gh0mxVtQLZnvozXkm2EOirc=; b=wzyw5fLS/Ja/2mMgdUH0Lj2vggFghEzlIqFS9KiDGyBegO9CnIbanYN0Zqwsr2Ky23 xJJz248jKihCgciXpyHc8bmv5/wW92GmSRfcqFwpHEE97jDkhbTvYHUpecfiYA/e6bNN dtlkr6bcfUpxUJZqrl/DQTJLCMI1fBk2hjsLTi7qUsdgf4Wgp/xKLFpNf14K5tg3hPsV e+Xxzx17YOSXTjGwoplCLNTfAAf0nSGp0UBxI+f4FJ3OQdDKxFDWIQFv9cXOEKAeKQqw xAfj9GZbEd18NHCDXzpdTCZe00oNNkgtgnjJdnwsPkYFuYAy1lC8otAhxhudhNmSXpv2 O0Eg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.77.70 with SMTP id q6mr58153510oew.98.1375104500221; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.94.239 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <12710.1375085495@sandelman.ca> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.a3c6d181235e95142a4efbdf979fe23b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <12710.1375085495@sandelman.ca> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:28:20 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FpnbcayWsAZlN3W8DB-J-x0mc_s Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d3e043cb9504e2a67729 Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:28:21 -0000 --047d7b33d3e043cb9504e2a67729 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > roll issue tracker wrote: > > Whether or not MPL is contained at the LBR is a deployment decision. > > Personally, I think it should be, and other multicast forwarding > should be > > used in non-lossy networks. > > ... > > > These issues should be addressed in the Applicability statement. > > is there any disagreement here? > > The Trickle Algorithm is derived from "epidemic update" type systems developed at PARC in the early 90s. So we already know that it can be deployed with utility in scenarios other than LLNs. My original comment was not to suggest that we should delay the draft while we think up new uses for MPL. Rather, by considering *any* other application it may help us decide whether the current proposal is sufficiently specified. One alternative use of MPL is to enable multicast updates in small mutli-subnet topologies like homenet. MPL would probably be less complex than deploying PIM-xM on small routers and, unlike IGMP/MLD Proxying [RFC 4605], it would not require hand-configured trees. I have a dnssdext proposal in mind that could use MPL to advantage over hetergeneous links. It seems unwise to me to artificially limit the applicability of a new standards track protocol considering the time and effort it takes to get an RFC approved. I believe that by making a single change to the MPL proposal it may be applied in a more general fashion without detracting from its anticipated use in LLNs. This change is to make proactive forwarding an interface (rather than global) setting and to specify its use more precisely. Respectfully, Kerry Lynn > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --047d7b33d3e043cb9504e2a67729 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Michael Richardson <<= a href=3D"mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" target=3D"_blank">mcr+ietf@sandelma= n.ca> wrote:
roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
=A0 =A0 > Whether or not MPL is contained at the LBR is a deployment dec= ision.
=A0 =A0 > Personally, I think it should be, and other multicast forwardi= ng should be
=A0 =A0 > used in non-lossy networks.

...

=A0 =A0 > These issues should be addressed in the Applicability statemen= t.

is there any disagreement here?

The Trickle Algorithm is derived from "epidemic = update" type systems developed at
PARC in the early 90s.=A0 So we a= lready know that it can be deployed with utility in
scenarios other than= LLNs.

My original comment was not to suggest that we should delay the draft w= hile we
think up new uses for MPL.=A0 Rather, by considering *any* other= application it may
help us decide whether the current proposal is suffi= ciently specified.

One alternative use of MPL is to enable multicast updates in small mutl= i-subnet
topologies like homenet.=A0 MPL would probably be less complex = than deploying
PIM-xM on small routers and, unlike IGMP/MLD Proxying [RF= C 4605], it would
not require hand-configured trees.=A0 I have a dnssdext proposal in mind th= at could
use MPL to advantage over hetergeneous links.

It seems u= nwise to me to artificially limit the applicability of a new standards trac= k
protocol considering the time and effort it takes to get an RFC approved.= =A0 I believe
that by making a single change to the MPL proposal it may = be applied in a more
general fashion without detracting from its anticip= ated use in LLNs.=A0 This change
is to make proactive forwarding an interface (rather than global) setting a= nd to
specify its use more precisely.

Respectfully, Kerry Lynn


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@= sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair. =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/<= /a>


_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--047d7b33d3e043cb9504e2a67729-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Mon Jul 29 06:43:17 2013 Return-Path: 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 5DF9021F9FBD for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:43:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, 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 5WzbAg+YDmYO for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B21521F9E83 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0BE2018C for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 10BF863A5E; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00968636AD for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:41:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.a3c6d181235e95142a4efbdf979fe23b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <12710.1375085495@sandelman.ca> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:43:17 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kerry Lynn wrote: > My original comment was not to suggest that we should delay the draft= while we > think up new uses for MPL.=C2=A0 Rather, by considering *any* other a= pplication it > may > help us decide whether the current proposal is sufficiently specified. > One alternative use of MPL is to enable multicast updates in small mu= tli-subnet > topologies like homenet.=C2=A0 MPL would probably be less complex tha= n deploying > PIM-xM on small routers and, unlike IGMP/MLD Proxying [RFC 4605], it = would > not require hand-configured trees.=C2=A0 I have a dnssdext proposal i= n mind that > could > use MPL to advantage over hetergeneous links. So, if sdnsext wants to use MPL, then it needs an applicability statement to make it clear where the boundaries of the scope-3 is. For homenet deployments of sdnsext, I think that homenet already has a need to determine site boundary. For eduprise deployments, it might be enough to say that automatic detection is impossible, and so routers should default to marking interfaces as not being scope-3, but should include a mechanism to include the interface into that scope (and which scope-3 domain if the router has more than two interfaces). Having said this, do you think we are done with ticket #128? =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUfZxFYqHRg3pndX9AQLXygP/WhdQldLZ5+cZqzgyIXzSKCjJdCHe3LrT R+aDBeqSfLbOPEnIp+xSV90ZfF/QCWHPLrHr4rkbAqu1qjs6ZhV7KQQUfKZMaBPT rTfybMpYvH3G1U0WWhfHDKn7HOT22Jkf3iHnk3K12mHRtnQj6ymwIFFQ0FuZHIdA ZTnzCobnl6o= =ZOVy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Mon Jul 29 07:31:53 2013 Return-Path: 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 2780C21F8AA1 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:31:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 dAZN+1nx0pTR for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x22b.google.com (mail-oa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F379C21F9BC4 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i10so7920058oag.2 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:30:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=SdKCpSKeqZtxH9GK+z9/qHaGK8uWQrnR1hTJPt/hn6s=; b=tBAunvFLPswQud/mVsw0ykTZ0yml8LkmGholGxPs4h38+6Tutlm7aNlTyIuo/PWzuE J42gdK11RlsA8JGd7LHdmUEZ8sjHOBbjQZ/eSXNUYOI7j37xl2fqyrwSzGJfyQGrgHX/ UM+vttadZfxl9a/g2R4Ogzs13ZBEwvyip9UHjBCwGqo2LpPDBKc98SQH4j4gGHyauM14 2Wc6x8U6XGwHCVBhKNJc31CIEGzLI5utunl7xv9oM8D9ae4wqChiMXTriXzd2FGCKGAJ gxid9qV3Bkhi6d1lGGrqiWmcOTr/S/3n5PzZOtVEQDvMtwLgEMp1LO5t3dptnJwTCAA/ G0dg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.38.164 with SMTP id h4mr58649214oek.22.1375108238946; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.94.239 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:30:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <31754.1375105303@sandelman.ca> References: <067.081907fd6195c3034e6e8c71a7eb4a93@trac.tools.ietf.org> <082.a3c6d181235e95142a4efbdf979fe23b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <12710.1375085495@sandelman.ca> <31754.1375105303@sandelman.ca> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:30:38 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: JgIfWy-f5kBGMGpItCskYnSfrZU Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149bf721c3a5904e2a75668 Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications? X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:31:53 -0000 --089e0149bf721c3a5904e2a75668 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Kerry Lynn wrote: > > My original comment was not to suggest that we should delay the > draft while we > > think up new uses for MPL. Rather, by considering *any* other > application it > > may > > help us decide whether the current proposal is sufficiently > specified. > > > One alternative use of MPL is to enable multicast updates in small > mutli-subnet > > topologies like homenet. MPL would probably be less complex than > deploying > > PIM-xM on small routers and, unlike IGMP/MLD Proxying [RFC 4605], it > would > > not require hand-configured trees. I have a dnssdext proposal in > mind that > > could > > use MPL to advantage over hetergeneous links. > > So, if sdnsext wants to use MPL, then it needs an applicability statement > to > make it clear where the boundaries of the scope-3 is. > > I'm not arguing that scope-3 is required for MPL beyond LLNs. In fact, reactive forwarding seems to rely only on link local multicast scope. (FYI, the provisional name is dnssdext.) If there's a need to limit the extent of MPL updates in the general case, couldn't this be done with Hop Count? For homenet deployments of sdnsext, I think that homenet already has a need > to determine site boundary. > For eduprise deployments, it might be enough to say that automatic > detection > is impossible, and so routers should default to marking interfaces as not > being scope-3, but should include a mechanism to include the interface into > that scope (and which scope-3 domain if the router has more than two > interfaces). > > Having said this, do you think we are done with ticket #128? > > Well, I thought that ticket #128had a dependency on the proactive forwarding tickets (#129 , #130) but I think you bring up the point that it also depends on #132 . I defer to the group to decide which is the cart and which is the horse. -K- -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > --089e0149bf721c3a5904e2a75668 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Michael Richardson <<= a href=3D"mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" target=3D"_blank">mcr+ietf@sandelma= n.ca> wrote:

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@= ieee.org> wrote:
=A0 =A0 > My original comment was not to suggest that we should delay th= e draft while we
=A0 =A0 > think up new uses for MPL.=A0 Rather, by considering *any* oth= er application it
=A0 =A0 > may
=A0 =A0 > help us decide whether the current proposal is sufficiently sp= ecified.

=A0 =A0 > One alternative use of MPL is to enable multicast updates in s= mall mutli-subnet
=A0 =A0 > topologies like homenet.=A0 MPL would probably be less complex= than deploying
=A0 =A0 > PIM-xM on small routers and, unlike IGMP/MLD Proxying [RFC 460= 5], it would
=A0 =A0 > not require hand-configured trees.=A0 I have a dnssdext propos= al in mind that
=A0 =A0 > could
=A0 =A0 > use MPL to advantage over hetergeneous links.

So, if sdnsext wants to use MPL, then it needs an applicability state= ment to
make it clear where the boundaries of the scope-3 is.

I'm not arguing that scope-3 is required for MPL = beyond LLNs.=A0 In fact, reactive
forwarding seems to rely only on link = local multicast scope.=A0 (FYI, the provisional
name is dnssdext.)=A0 If= there's a need to limit the extent of MPL updates in the
general case, couldn't this be done with Hop Count?

For homenet deployments of sdnsext, I think that homenet already has a need=
to determine site boundary.
For eduprise deployments, it might be enough to say that automatic detectio= n
is impossible, and so routers should default to marking interfaces as not being scope-3, but should include a mechanism to include the interface into=
that scope (and which scope-3 domain if the router has more than two
interfaces).

Having said this, do you think we are done with ticket #128?

Well, I thought that ticket #128 had a = dependency on the proactive forwarding
tickets (#129, #130) but I think you bring up the= point that it also depends on
#132.=A0= I defer to the group to decide which is the cart and which is the horse.
-K-

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works



_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll


--089e0149bf721c3a5904e2a75668-- From khoudia@nsrc.org Sun Jul 28 08:29:17 2013 Return-Path: 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 2F35A21F9048 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:29:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.066 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044] 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 IXmhr0FRegvk for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nsrc.org (nsrc.org [IPv6:2001:468:d01:103::80df:9d13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7E321F8CB4 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.nsrc.org [127.0.0.1]) by nsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4B9E25113 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at nsrc.org Received: from nsrc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nsrc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id YoMjR14vvsh9 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.134.48.238] (unknown [41.214.14.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44F0AE2510D for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Khoudia GUEYE Message-Id: <8D4930C4-23D1-46A1-ACBB-EAFE5187EF5C@nsrc.org> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:43:50 +0000 To: "roll@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:59:49 -0700 Subject: [Roll] Sa X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:10:52 -0000 Envoy=C3=A9 de mon iPhone= From yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp Tue Jul 30 09:19:23 2013 Return-Path: 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 57E2621F9EA8 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:19:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 vAXGJYSOgbSs for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:19:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imx12.toshiba.co.jp (imx12.toshiba.co.jp [61.202.160.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE4721F9E94 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.232.103]) by imx12.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id r6UGJDrb009378 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from tsbmgw-mgw01 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6UGJDig017895 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:13 +0900 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw01 (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1) with SMTP ID 779 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from arc11.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.90.127]) by tsbmgw-mgw01.tsbmgw-mgw01.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6UGJCfM017892 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:12 +0900 Received: (from root@localhost) by arc11.toshiba.co.jp id r6UGJDS9006174 for roll@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from ovp11.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.90.148] by arc11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id BAA06169; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:12 +0900 Received: from mx.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp11.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id r6UGJCX4021729 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id r6UGJC02010191; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.199.16.169] (ivpn-1-169.mobile.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.16.169]) by spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BACB697D64 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:11 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <51F7E77C.5090607@toshiba.co.jp> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:19:08 +0900 From: Yusuke DOI User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: roll@ietf.org References: <20130729152509.11217.19740.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130729152509.11217.19740.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130729152509.11217.19740.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:19:23 -0000 Dear roll folks, I (and Matt Gillmore) have a proposal to make MPL configuration over DHCP option. I'm on the IETF meeting so I really appriciate if anyone can take a quick review on it and/or have F2F discussion. We're thinking of thousands of nodes under a LLNs. And we identified configuration of MPL parameters is one of missing pieces for manageable large scale LLN. Regards, Yusuke -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:25:09 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : MPL Parameter Configuration Option for DHCPv6 Author(s) : Yusuke Doi Matthew Gillmore Filename : draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2013-07-29 Abstract: This draft is to define a way to configure MPL parameter via DHCPv6 option. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From kadeleye@gmail.com Tue Jul 30 10:18:13 2013 Return-Path: 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 AF00611E80ED for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] 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 9y-iHAeil4SQ for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-x22e.google.com (mail-oa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C928611E80D5 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id l10so2468248oag.33 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=CkA8U3j/gLFT+Z5BrCtto/IXTu8A+xEdQJMPZCqkI7Y=; b=D45n9Monv/WETxHO2YSPGI3RyVAW9/3qSJDgiewHPuaPliL9ZMdZ6oMBV8DhPQTzvs iNJKQyD89pJfh2P3O3iEd/he8ZY4EmcfR/J7RwcgMkImCtm4sLkfcESasPs7XaVUS3+C W5E6yLl/Elz42tNGTg3lYs+AY1mhXVPTpYIg/R0VAhrrt/wF2sdZoOXLZ+JoOSGaKFhq FmGC1cqwMdRxVFJ+IDdgYZaIr2Kn1N5SkmLLCmkyoLywJUKg7xzDXuCMDWHtUrMM/1m6 E6MlAVUv0kWdsJvhTjpBZ/Y579MyOnCZabgaV/Be78QL8OKUlKUkyRRAqeeaO6wDHx0D K/Hw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.200.230 with SMTP id jv6mr10033603obc.46.1375204691924; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.97.115 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51F7E77C.5090607@toshiba.co.jp> References: <20130729152509.11217.19740.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51F7E77C.5090607@toshiba.co.jp> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:18:11 -0700 Message-ID: From: Kunle Adeleye To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2cbc427de5104e2bdcb1e Subject: Re: [Roll] Request for Review: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:18:13 -0000 --001a11c2cbc427de5104e2bdcb1e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Read On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Yusuke DOI wrote: > Dear roll folks, > > I (and Matt Gillmore) have a proposal to make MPL configuration over DHCP > option. I'm on the IETF meeting so I really appriciate if anyone can take a > quick review on it and/or have F2F discussion. > > We're thinking of thousands of nodes under a LLNs. And we identified > configuration of MPL parameters is one of missing pieces for manageable > large scale LLN. > > Regards, > > Yusuke > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-**configuration-02.txt > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:25:09 -0700 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : MPL Parameter Configuration Option for DHCPv6 > Author(s) : Yusuke Doi > Matthew Gillmore > Filename : draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-** > configuration-02.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2013-07-29 > > Abstract: > This draft is to define a way to configure MPL parameter via DHCPv6 > option. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/**doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-** > parameter-configuration > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-** > configuration-02 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-doi-roll-mpl-** > parameter-configuration-02 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-**drafts/ > > ______________________________**_________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.**html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/**1shadow-sites.txt > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/roll > --001a11c2cbc427de5104e2bdcb1e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Read

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp> wrote:
Dear roll folks,

I (and Matt G= illmore) have a proposal to make MPL configuration over DHCP option. I'= m on the IETF meeting so I really appriciate if anyone can take a quick rev= iew on it and/or have F2F discussion.

We're thinking of thousands of nodes under a LLNs. And we identifie= d configuration of MPL parameters is one of missing pieces for manageable l= arge scale LLN.

Regards,

Yusuke


-------- Original = Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.t= xt
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:25:09 -0700
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Rep= ly-To: intern= et-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce= @ietf.org


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line= Internet-Drafts directories.


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Title =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 : MPL Parameter Configuration Option for DHCPv6
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Yusuke Doi
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Matthew Gillmore
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Filenam= e =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-02.txt=
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 8
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Date = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2013-07-29

Abstract:
=A0 =A0This draft is to define a way to configure MPL para= meter via DHCPv6
=A0 =A0option.


The IETF datatracker status p= age for this draft is:
https://datatracke= r.ietf.org/doc/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration=

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doi-roll-mpl-parameter-= configuration-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-doi-roll-= mpl-parameter-configuration-02


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of s= ubmission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

In= ternet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/

______________________________= _________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Inte= rnet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or = ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt



_______= ________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
<= br> --001a11c2cbc427de5104e2bdcb1e--