In your previous mail you wrote:
It's not yet a standard, right?
=> it is a proposed standard.
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).
=> there is a time for this : last call(s) for the next version
which is proposed for the IGMPv3/MLDv2 upgrade and draft standard status.
- there is no reason for using MLD for link local multicast groups
as far IPv6 (layer-3) is concerned.
=> there is a very well known reason: snooping by layer-2 switches.
- the only presented reason for them is some layer-2 snooping. This is
layer violation, a hack, which should not be codified in standards.
=> so you should flame the draft-ietf-magma-snoop-02.txt document
in the magma list.
- at least it should be optional for link local multicast groups used
in Neighbor discovery
=> I can't see how it can be optional: either it is useful so is
recommended/required, or it is not useful so is not recommended/required.
- illogical definition: you cannot join solicited nodes multicast
group before you have address,
=> I don't understand: I can send a join message.
you cannot do DAD without listening
to solicited nodes multicast group
=> I agree.
- layer-2 snooper can get the same information from the ND traffic
directly,
=> no, layer-2 snooper can get the information (has someone joined
this group) only through MLD snooping for any group, i.e., ND is
not a special case.
- 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.
=> this was already discussed and the consensus is that MLD is mandatory
to implement.
- if layer-2 snoop is going to make use of MLD, it or some part of it
must actually be node on the network
=> no, the layer-2 snooper is a layer-2 snooper by definition.
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)
=> the MLD state is a soft state so this is not a real problem.
- 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).
=> same.
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.
=> s/would add/adds/ because MLD is mandatory. But you still can remove
the support of multicast on the links (and remove MLD too). Perhaps
this is the best solution if your argument is that multicast just sucks.
Regards
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
