Subject: [core] #247: Scalability question IANA reviewer for IPv4 multicast address request

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:53:59 -0000

#247: Scalability question IANA reviewer for IPv4 multicast address request

 The request for a global "All CoAP Nodes" IPv4 multicast address lead to
 the following question from the IANA designated expert:

 "Have they considered how this may work in sites with Internet multicast
 connectivity. E.g. there is multicast connectivity between thousands of
 universities. Do you want a node in one domain to reach all CoAP in all
 other domains across the Internet?

 Does this scale? Are there any security considerations?"

 It is not clear from the current CoAP draft how this issue should be
 addressed.

 1) if we follow the guideline that unauthenticated multicast SHOULD NOT be
 accepted by a server, discovery won't work in typical cases because
 devices are not mutually authenticated in initial discovery situations.

 2) if we state that we won't use this MC address for discovery purposes,
 we don't need the multicast address registration in the first place.

-- 
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  esko.dijk@…      |      Owner:  draft-ietf-core-coap@…
     Type:  protocol defect  |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major            |  Milestone:  post-WGLC-1
Component:  coap             |    Version:
 Severity:  -                |   Keywords:
-----------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/247>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:43:49 -0000

Comment (by esko.dijk@…):

 Additionally the comment below from the IANA designated expert reviewer,
 for the IPv6 multicast address request that we made:

 "There are some concerns about how "All CoAP Nodes" will be used for IPv4,
 and it seems there is still discussion in the WG. As the same protocol is
 used also for IPv6, it may make sense to defer the IPv6 allocation until
 it is clear how "All CoAP Nodes" will be used for both IPv4 and IPv6, and
 then process the two applications together.

 Is there any need, e.g. implementations and testing, for doing the
 IPv6 application prior to the IPv4 application?"

-- 
-----------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:  esko.dijk@…      |       Owner:  draft-ietf-core-coap@…
     Type:  protocol defect  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major            |   Milestone:  post-WGLC-1
Component:  coap             |     Version:
 Severity:  -                |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                   |
-----------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/247#comment:1>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:47:24 -0000

#247: Scalability questions IANA review for IPv6/IPv4 multicast address request

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/247#comment:2>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>