On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 25/07/2013 04:31, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
I think the document is ready to go. Good that we finally can
close the eternal u g bit mess.
For the open issue in Section 7. I am also in favour
of retaining
Michael...
On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:37 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
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
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
On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:26 PM 7/24/13, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
jinmei.tat...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:15 +0200,
Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a couple of comments on the draft:
- I think the draft explains the motivation of introducing the new
(I meant
On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:39, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:26 PM 7/24/13, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
jinmei.tat...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:15 +0200,
Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a couple of comments on the draft:
- I
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
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
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
On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:07 PM 7/25/13, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
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
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
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
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)
On 25 Jul 2013, at 19:03, Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net 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
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
On Jul 25, 2013, at 22:09, Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net 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).
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net 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
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
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,
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net 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
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 mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a
few
19 matches
Mail list logo
