MLD-snooping switches is the biggest reason.
Ok. So, it seems like there would be no need to send these reports for link-local multicast on point-to-point links. Should this clarification be made in the IPv6 over PPP RFC?
thanks, Siva
Brian
Siva Veerepalli wrote:RFC2710 (MLD) states that when a General Membership Query is received, a node listening to the query sends a membership report for all multicast addresses it is listening to, excluding the all-nodes link-local multicast address and any multicast addresses of scope 0 (reserved) and 1 (node-local).
My question is, is the node required to send the membership report for solicited-node multicast address as well? In general, since nodes do not receive link-local scope multicast packets from out side the link, why is it required for the nodes to report membership to the router for *any* link-local scope multicast addresses?
Thanks,
Siva
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
