On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote:
> This has already been discussed, and the consensus was this:
>
> > There are some other alternatives which might make sense if bridges are
> > keying off MLD Reports to determine whether to forward multicast
> > packets:
> > - When assigning a tentative link-local address and no other address
> > exists for the router, send an MLD Report with the source address set
> > to the unspecified address. This is currently not allowed by MLD and
> > might result in the packet failing verification by a bridge/router and
> > therefore being discarded.
>
> See also the following discussion:
> http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/200007/msg00193.html
Speaking of which, I'm not sure whether there exists IETF practise for
this..
Should there be notes kept on upcoming changes/caveats of different RFC's
published by ipngwg?
I mean, issues like these are pretty difficult to find in the mailing list
archives if you weren't there (and even if you were, you might not
remember them).
Having these written down somewhere per RFC would make sure that they'll
be checked when the RFC is being revised, and read by those interested in
the issues.
A draft version of the "updated" RFC if you may; of if not that, links to
relevant discussions on the list.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
