Brian Haberman wrote:
I don't like the idea of a random delay in the MLD Reports. As I said in another note, it either adversely affects the logic in the MLD specs or causes application delays for non-LL groups.
Is having a delay in the NS transmission alone sufficient? So that the Report is sent immediately and the NS is delayed.
Regards, Brian
I think what Jari asked was not a modification to the semantics of reporting group joins.
I think that what Jari proposed was actually that we delay DAD (which entails both the operation of beginning listening to a group and the NS transmission).
To put it another way, we don't actually configure the address until the random delay timer has expired. The delay's expiration is a precondition for address configuration, in this case.
In this way, joining the group occurs when the group is first listened to (in accordance with MLDvX) and the NS transmission is similarly delayed.
Delaying only the NS is insufficient, as the statement in RFC-2462 is for two purposes:
1. Increased reliability of DAD NS tranmission.
2. Protection of the link against packet storms.
Relying only on the MLD report replay mechanisms only achieves the first of these goals, and not the second, since the MLD transmissions may be synchronized for the first report.
Delaying both provides superior protection of the link, and gains the same reliability mechanisms already available without requiring change to the MLD specifications.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
