> no, it doesn't make sense to me. even for hardcoded
> addresses, there
> should be an MLD join packet issued from the listener.
=> Well, the MLD spec doesn't say that though! We can change
the MLD spec if enough people agree, but as far as this
draft is concerned,we have to follow existing specs.
>
> what i don't understand is why you are wanting to omit it.
=> I didn't omit anything, I said it was not mandatory.
If it is then there would have been statement in the
RFC to indicate that.
for
> example, if 3G mobile node in the following diagram
> transmits MLD join
> uptream router could suppress packet to the expensive
> wireless link for
> packet to ff02::blah. i believe MLD support has benefit to the
> situation.
=> But do you assume that the default router on a p2p link
will forward mcast packets to multiple links even though
hosts on those links didn't join this group?
incoming packet to ff02::blah
|
H2--------R------- H1
If only H2 joined, doyou assume that the router will
send it to H1 as well? Why?
Note H1 and H2 do not share the same link.
Hesham
>
> itojun
>
>
> router
> |
> |
> 3G mobile node
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
