https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke-6man-mcast-not-efficient-01 may be of interest in understanding some of the issues with IPv6 and wifi.
Regards, Alia On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Toerless Eckert <eck...@cisco.com> wrote: > Sure... > But don't look at me, i don't remember i added that Cc:, i added mboned > ;-)) > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:15:49PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Can we please remove ieee-ietf-co...@ietf.org from this conversation? > > Once we as the IETF figure out what to write down and discuss, that'll > be a > > good time to interact, > > but I think this conversation is really not the point of that list. > > > > It's already cc'd to mboned and homenet... > > > > Thanks, > > Alia > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Toerless Eckert <eck...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:43:56AM +0000, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > wrote: > > > > Yes it is. IP over Foo must indicate if IP multicast over a link > uses L2 > > > mechanisms or not. > > > > > > > > If not, a router learns from MLD the state it needs to figure to > which > > > devices it should copy a given packet. > > > > > > Well, the problem with WiFI is that L2 multicast are useful under some > > > conditions and not useful under others. And the conditions are more > > > complex than boolean ;-) > > > > > > > For Wi-Fi, there is no multicast support and it is sufficiently clear > > > now that relying on broadcast is not a good idea. > > > > > > Pretty sure you don't mean that. If you would eliminate ALL multicast, > you > > > didn't have discovery of new devices. > > > > > > > Rather, a good idea could be to build a multilink subnet with APs > that > > > are also routers to serve the wireless edge, whereby the Ethernet > backbone > > > can rely on L2 broadcast while the wireless edge is routed. Many LLNs > work > > > like this. Why should Wi-Fi be an exception? > > > > > > Thats why i asked what device model we need. Don't think i got an > > > answer for that though. L3 homenet APs would be lovely. But will it > > > be sufficient to ONLY support those theoretical devices in homenet ? > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I'd hate this, IEEE telling IETF what to do. Just like IETF telling > IEEE > > > to do an immensely scalable L2 multicast support so that Solicited Node > > > Multicast appears so cool on a switched fabric? Does not seem to work > > > either. > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > The IETF has to decide if it wants to design IP over 802.11 - or > Wi-Foo > > > in general which would be my take. And then the IETF has to decide if > it > > > wants to design IP over a mix of Wi-Fi and Ethernet. IEEE people may > join > > > the effort so we do the job right. > > > > > > Getting IPv6 link signaling work with WiFi sucking L2 multicast > > > is just a bit of work in the L2 IPv6 protocols that can be done > > > IMHO without botrhering IEEE. Getting streaming multicast work > > > best requires more L2 awareness and it doesn't seem homenet > > > is interested in thast anyhow, so i think we're only going to get > > > a solution for the L2 IPv6 signaling piece realistically in the > > > IETF alone. > > > > > > Cheers > > > toerless > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > homenet mailing list > > > homenet@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > > -- > --- > Toerless Eckert, eck...@cisco.com >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
