>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:51:43 +0900 (JST),
>>>>> OKABE Nobuo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The draft assumes that a minimum host sends/receives
> ND related link-local multicast without MLD,
> and Hop-by-Hop Options Header is also unnecessary.
> I'm not aware that L2 switch may drop the packets
> without MLD as you mentioned.
> But, how serious the problem is?
Please read my response to Cyndi. I'm talking about future
implementation of L2 switches that support MLD snooping. My concern
was partly (or 80%) wrong, which was due to a misunderstanding of
mine, but I'm still have a concern based on the current specification.
> We developed a kind of minimum host
> that is almost based on this draft, and
> ran over a hundred of the hosts on a IPv6 network in N+I Tokyo 2001.
> However, we have never seen the problem.
Of course. As far as I know, there is no L2 switch that support MLD
snooping at this moment.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
