Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] IANA Port & Multicast Addresses

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:07:42 +0100

> Chris, is your opinion we should define only one link-local multicast
> address at this time?

I think we should find out what people want and submit
whatever there's a definite need for (not a hypothetical
maybe in the future case). I only can see a need for
all link-local neighbour routers in terms of what the WG
is chartered to do. If someone else has such a need (an
aspect of SMF or DYMO I've overlooked for example) then
bring that on too, but if not, not.

> Regarding 3 = Port
> The document says all interoperable implementations use the MANET
> port. If you chose to run OLSRv2 on another port, it wouldn't be
> considered interoperable. Otherwise, I don't see an issue with running
> a protocol on another port.

At the moment I don't see any meaning to, for example,
running OLSRv2 and DYMO on the same port, and doing
so introduces distinct complications. Again I'm of
the view of asking for what's needed, no more, no less.
I don't say there isn't a possibility here, but we
should first discuss the architectures and the nasty
questions that arise (I have several, here's one just
for starters - what about multi-message packets, and
who gets the packet header?) and if we have a need,
then ask. Until then, don't.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

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

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:35:52 -0700

> bring that on too, but if not, not.

I would also like to see at least a site-scoped "All MANET Routers"
address to go with the link-local one, i.e., as for the "All Routers"
multicast address in IPv6. An immediate use-case is for multicast
discovery of Internet gateways that are within the connected MANET
but multiple L3 hops away.

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Pedro M. Ruiz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:15:46 +0200

Templin, Fred L wrote:

>multicast address in IPv6.
>
Fully agree.

> An immediate use-case is for multicast
Well, I think for that particular case, there might be better 
alternatives being evaluated within AUTOCONF WG... but I can still see 
other use-cases for this.

--Pedro

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro M. Ruiz, Ph.D.                    E-mail: [email-masked]
Fac. Informatica, Univ. of Murcia       Phone:  +34968364335
Campus de Espinardo s/n                 Fax:    +34968364151
E-30100, Espinardo, Murcia              www: ants.dif.um.es/~pedrom/
SPAIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:06:08 -0700

Pedro,

> alternatives being evaluated within AUTOCONF WG... but I can
> still see other use-cases for this.

We have an AUTOCONF-related proposal that uses site-scoped
multicast for Internet gateway discovery:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp-01.txt

What do the other alternatives being evaluated in AUTOCONF
do in terms of Internet gateway discovery?

Thanks - Fred

________________________________

From: Pedro M. Ruiz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:16 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Ian Chakeres; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] IANA Port & Multicast Addresses

Templin, Fred L wrote: 

			Chris, is your opinion we should define only one
link-local multicast
			address at this time?

	
	I would also like to see at least a site-scoped "All MANET
Routers"
	address to go with the link-local one, i.e., as for the "All
Routers"
	multicast address in IPv6.

Fully agree.

	 An immediate use-case is for multicast
	discovery of Internet gateways that are within the connected
MANET
	but multiple L3 hops away.

--Pedro

	Fred