Subject: [Manet-dt] Revivied discussion on MANET multicast addresses

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:42:19 -0700

I think we've agreed to have a link-local multicast address for
routing protocols.

LL - ALL_MANET_ROUTERS.

Now, I'd like to ask about creating a global ALL_MANET_ROUTERS or a
range of global addresses that are used for dissemination of packets
within the MANET between MANET Routers.

How do people feel about a global ALL_MANET_ROUTERS or a range of
global multicast addresses for us within a MANET?

Does anyone know of any existing protocols with similar multicast
needs, that we might use as a template?

Ian

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:46:36 -0700

Ian, 

> global multicast addresses for us within a MANET?

To me, this would suggest a "site-local" scope for ALL_MANET_ROUTERS
if one considers an entire connected MANET as a "site". The IPv6
addressing architecture defines a site-local scope for multicast
(see: RFC4291, Section 2.7) and there is in fact an 'All Routers'
site-local multicast address already assigned in:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses

Unfortunately, things don't seem quite so clear-cut in IPv4.
(RFC3171, Section 3) seems to indicate that assignments
from the local network control block (224.0.0/24) must not
be forwarded at all (i.e., they are of link-local scope),
while assignments from other blocks appear to be of global
scope. I don't know if there is a way to allocate a
local/global-scoped IPv4 multicast and specify that it
is actually to be treated as site-local?

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:56:48 -0700

> Unfortunately, things don't seem quite so clear-cut in IPv4.

Then again, there is the IPv4 "Administratively Scoped"
multicast block (239.0.0.0/8) and portions of that space
are designated as "Site-Local Scope"; see RFC2365 and:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses

Fred

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:11:57 -0700

How do people feel about defining one "site" scoped multicast for
manet protocols? Please write with support or dissent.

I think the semantics for these multicast messages would be that MANET
routers must not  forwarded these packets out non-manet interfaces.

Ian

---

From: "Joe Macker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 16:24:09 -0400

Well since we put such a notion in the SMF draft I am a fan. 
I don't believe it needs to be one address. It could be a range of
administratively scoped addresses. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:12 PM
>To: Templin, Fred L
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] Revivied discussion on MANET multicast 
>addresses
>
>How do people feel about defining one "site" scoped multicast 
>for manet protocols? Please write with support or dissent.
>
>I think the semantics for these multicast messages would be 
>that MANET routers must not  forwarded these packets out 
>non-manet interfaces.
>
>Ian
>
>> multicast block (239.0.0.0/8) and portions of that space are 
>> designated as "Site-Local Scope"; see RFC2365 and:
>>

---

From: Maoyu Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 16:46:46 -0400

A range of scoped addresses are needed since SMF will support different 
multicast groups.

>administratively scoped addresses. 
Maoyu Wang

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Ad hoc and Sensor Network Systems
Communications Research Centre, Industry Canada
Government of Canada

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:33:14 -0700

I think one well-known address would be useful for routing and other
MANET protocols (autoconf).

I agree a set of addresses would be useful as well.

Anyone else?

Ian

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:05:45 -0700

Hello Ian,

We had this discussion before.  As I remember, without checking
old e-mails, the result was that each routing protocol would get
its own multicast address.  It is O.K. with me to use the same
multicast address for all manet routing protocols and demultiplex
based on port number.  I am O.K. either way.  Things get a little
bit more complicated when there are considerations about
restricting flooding to backbone nodes only, but still with a
requirement for backwards compatibility with all nodes.  I went
through a very thorough analysis about how to do this and came
to the conclusion the compatibility is possible, and that it would
be nice to have a multicast address for the use by the backbone
nodes.  This was in an old Smurf draft, I think.  It needs to be
revised...

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "Joe Macker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:14:41 -0400

SMF also supports non=scoped addresses. 
My point was we may need a range for multiple scoped purposes and some may
be TBD (e.g., autoconf). 

>From: Maoyu Wang [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 4:47 PM
>To: Joe Macker
>Cc: [email-masked]
>A range of scoped addresses are needed since SMF will support 
>different multicast groups.
>Joe Macker wrote:
>
>Mobile Ad hoc and Sensor Network Systems Communications 
>Research Centre, Industry Canada Government of Canada
>
>