Subject: Re: [Int-area] Multicast draft (fwd)

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:08:57 +0200 (CEST)

Sending to list as well

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:26:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
To: Juan Carlos Zuniga <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Stanley, Dorothy" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Multicast draft

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, Juan Carlos Zuniga wrote:

> Hello Mikael,
> 
> I wanted to call your attention to a new version
> of draft-perkins-intarea-multicast-ieee802. After a long time we got back
> to it. At the moment it is only a reordering of the same information, but
> we believe this new structure will allow us advancing more the draft.
> 
> Any comments either off-line or in the list would be appreciated.
> 
> Note that we are planning to present at IntArea, and there is another
> presentation about a multicast testbed that will reference the draft.

Hi,

commenting while reading through:

typo:
"work primarily over *wilress*"

"to ameliorate the effects of multicast traffic."
I had to look up what ameliorate means.

A reader of 3.1.1 without background knowledge of 802.11 might infer that 
multicast packets are acknowledged by design. From what I understood, this is 
not the case and basic 802.11 operation is that multicast packets can indeed be 
"lost", as in not properly received by STA?

3.1.2 "slow rate". Wouldn't it be better to use "low data rate"?

3.2.1 Not all those protocols use multicast, some are broadcast (right?)

3.2.4 mixes IPv4 and IPv6 terms (not inherently wrong, but might be confusing?)

4.1. How does the AP know the address/mac mapping? DHCP snooping?

4.3. first sentence seems truncated, should be "instead of ARP" or something 
along those lines? Can NDP really be used to negotiate MTU? I wish this were 
true, but as far as I know this is only available in RA?

4.4. Is there a reference to what this function is called in 802-land? Isn't 
this same topic as 4.5 and 4.6?

4.6. Should there be a note on how common GCR is in currently shipping 
products?

5.1. "the core routers which we are using do not support this" We?

I'd also be happier if stateful firewall came before NAT in this section.

5.1 doesn't have any IPv6 measures? It talks about neighbour discovery, but 
then only uses IPv4 terms?

General comment:

I'd like to see IPv4 and IPv6 used throughout the document when it's in a 
section that talks IPv4 or IPv6 specifics, and only use "IP" when it's talking 
about both.

Good document, I think it's valuable to publish a document like this to spread 
awareness of the issues at hand!

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]