> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IPv6 for Some Second and Third Genera > tion Cellular Hosts" > > >=> I've never seen that in any spec. > >I guess you are saying that it's needed for L2 > >switches that snoop MLD messages to decide > >on mcast forwarding of mcast ethernet frames? > > > >If so, then we don't have this situation in > >cellular networks. What we're dealing with is > >a p2p link with no multicast capability. > > even under the above situation, there's no such clause that permits > omission of MLD in RFC2710 (MLD). if you have any reference please > let me know, i'm interested in knowing the rationale for the claim. > > itojun
The relevant paragraph in RFC 2710 for what itojun is referring to is: MLD messages ARE sent for multicast addresses whose scope is 2 (link-local), including Solicited-Node multicast addresses [ADDR- ARCH], except for the link-scope, all-nodes address (FF02::1). I believe this was indeed for supporting snooping switches. However, sending reports for link-scoped groups is also required if you want to support source notification of interest (draft-ietf-idmr-msnip-01.txt) for link-scoped groups. The scenario here would be if the router ever needed to be informed, to know whether to start sending data to that group or not. -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
