Ralph Droms (rdroms) <rdr...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term.
>>
>> When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to
the set
>> of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used?
> Hm, I thought I responded but apparently not...
> This change to scope 0x03 is not just for MPL, so we don't know how
> else it might be used in the future.
I understand, but perhaps it would be better, if, when another use case comes
along, they write a document explaining why scope-3 is correct and
non-conflicting with the trickle mcast use case.
> Specific examples:
> 1) two adjacent RPL domains, which do not share a prefix but are to be
> considered as one realm for mDNS
I accept that this is a plausible scenario, but I believe that it
presupposes a technical answer from the not-yet occured sdnsext BOF.
sDNSext could well mandate a proxy solution where actual multicast packets do
not cross that boundary.
> 2) one RPL domain and one other non-RPL subnet that are to be considered
as one realm for mDNS
Do you mean, in fact, one LLN and another non-LLN technology, which have MPL
capable routers connecting them?
I write it this way, because I think that there is a belief that RPL can only
be used in LLNs, while the RPL architecture is very specifically for multiple
link types, and I find it hard to imagine an MPL capable router which does
not also speak RPL.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
pgpHdpFuAW6kR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
