Hi Pascal Yes, that works.
Thanks, Stig On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:30 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Stig > > The rationale behind a new protocol is, same as all 6lo work, power > efficiency in IoT space. Now, IoT is a precursor to moving more device to the > green side. So your point stands. Either we are specific that in the target > space there is no MLD at all, or we talk interactions between the two. > > IoT devices will typically sleep more than even cats do. They cannot stay > awake at all times just in case they are be polled for a report. They cannot > store much code either. The proposal is a simple extension to existing code, > since the change we're doing here was already done for classical IPv6 ND with > RFC 8505, 8928 and 8929. RFC 8929 typically isolates the non-broadcast IoT > edge from the broadcast backbone. Note that with RFC 8505, IoT devices do not > use SNMA so no need for MLD there either. > > Now for both ND and MLD, there will be a time of coexistence in the same > link. The documents for ND is already long awaited. My suggestion is that > that a future document covers both, and the current draft is for > non-broadcast IoT links only, no coexistence. > > Works? > > Pascal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stig Venaas <[email protected]> > > Sent: lundi 8 août 2022 19:21 > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-08 replacing MLD > > > > Hi 6lo and draft authors > > > > I have some concerns about this draft replacing MLD for group > > registration. > > > > Having 2 different protocols for the same thing can be problematic. > > Hosts or routers may need to support both protocols. Is it clear which > > one should be used in different environments? Is there a chance that > > both may be used at the same time in a network? In particular, is there > > a chance that a router may need to simultaneously support both protocols > > on an L3 interface? In that case it must be considered how the two > > protocols interoperate. > > > > Also, we have been pushing the use of SSM in the IETF for a very long > > time, but this draft only supports ASM since only a group address is > > provided. > > > > It would be good to have some more info on the need to replace MLD. I > > understand there are concerns about packet loss, limited resources etc. > > > > Regards, > > Stig _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
