> From: Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    > >I'm going to ingore RFC 2710 on this point. I do not send MLD for link
>    > >local multicast groups.
>    > 
>    >  then your device will have trouble operating on coming switches
>    >  that support MLD snooping, and it will be very difficult to
>    >  track the issue down (extraordinary support load to your colleagues).
>    >  i suggest you to follow RFC2710.
>    
> => I strongly support Itojun! Please don't ignore standards just because
> NIBY.

It's not yet a standard, right? It's still RFC, and I'm just giving my
comments on it. I'm only trying to work as a "fire fighter" to prevent
dubious requirements to get into standards (and hurting everyone
there).

NIBY??? (if this is supposed to mean "Not Invented By You", I'm
somewhat offended). My complaint about sending MLD reports on link
local groups has nothing to do with anything I invented or didn't
invent. It purely technical issue, based on

- there is no reason for using MLD for link local multicast groups
  as far IPv6 (layer-3) is concerned.

- the only presented reason for them is some layer-2 snooping. This is
  layer violation, a hack, which should not be codified in standards.

- at least it should be optional for link local multicast groups used
  in Neighbor discovery

- illogical definition: you cannot join solicited nodes multicast
  group before you have address, you cannot do DAD without listening
  to solicited nodes multicast group

- layer-2 snooper can get the same information from the ND traffic
  directly,

- sending MLD's on big monolithic stacks, can be minor issue (code is
  already there), but for small devices, like cell phones, modularity
  is desired. One should be able to run IPv6 without MLD.

- if layer-2 snoop is going to make use of MLD, it or some part of it
  must actually be node on the network and work as a multicast router
  to make queries (a switch can be powered off when host is attached
  or just powered off and loses the state)

- in practice, there will never be "leave group" MLD's from hosts on
  the link (hosts leave the link usually by user just unplugging it).

--
ps. There has been some discussion about having DAD optional on 3GPP
links. Requiring MLD would add more packets to that link: MLD join +
DAD.


   


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to