>>>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:33:01 -0500,
>>>>> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
I read this to mean you support option 2 (but without expecting any
future change in the MLD spec). I can live with this, but as others
pointed out, this approach may cause a trouble when we are using MLD
snooping switches and the first MLD reports for DAD NSs collide: the
reports will be lost due to the collisions, then the MLD filter in the
snooping switches isn't configured correctly, then DAD NSs can be
dropped due to the filter even if there is an address duplication and
other nodes are listening to the solicited-multicast group.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
