On Mon, 10 Aug 2015, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
From what I read below, one way out of this is the IETF making a clear
statement that multicast is an integral part of IP networking, and if a
medium doesn't support delivering multicast frames in a similarily reliable
fashion to unicast, it's not suited to carrying IP based protocols (or any
other protocol that uses L2 broadcast/multicast).
Such a thing is just untrue. IP works on any link, it has to. That's why we do
IP over Foo. Now all we need is IP over Wi-Foo for radios such as .11.
As for protocols that rely on IP multicast, it's IP's problem. If the
underlying link layer does not have multicast, it is IP's responsibility to
emulate it.
Yes, but what about when multicast is there but it's less reliable
compared to unicast? Is this also IPs problem?
Again, if if's IPs problem then if 802.11 would just clearly state that
this is the case, then we have a way forward. I just hope 802.11
understand that it'll see a lot more unicast coming its way and be
prepared to handle it.
Something in the middle, but anyway changing the requirements on IETF
protocols to avoid using multicast if it can, documenting where it makes
sense and when it doesn't.
This also has already started with the efficient ND work at 6MAN and many
drafts from design team members.
Remember to get IETF chair to say this and give this as a clear
directional statement how things should be done going forward, just the
same way it's been said regarding security and encryption. I have little
problem with this approach as long as we have consensus that this is the
way things should be done.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
