At Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:46:45 +,
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com 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
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
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
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
+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
- Original Message -
From: Robert Cragie robert.cra...@gridmerge.com
To: r...@ietf.org; 6...@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
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 mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works
pgpsplhkiOMCD.pgp
On Jul 24, 2013, at 4:58 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
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
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
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,
Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com 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
(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
mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines scope
0x03 as:
3 Network-Specific scope,
15 matches
Mail list logo
