On Aug 13, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > So what text do we add to the Sri document to exclude MLDv2 protocol > from their proposal?
I would recommend that you explain the point (why would it be inappropriate for an MLDv2 multicast to be sent to a unicast MAC address if the sender in fact knows that only that MAC address is relevant), and suggest text. Are you referring to > 5.2. On receiving a Router Advertisement from the subscriber > > Since the Router Advertisements are unicasted by the edge router > towards the subscriber the access node does not need to intercept the > downstream Router Advertisements. or > 6.2. On sending a Router Advertisement towards the subscriber > > When the edge router sends out a Router Advertisement in response to > a tunneled RS that included an LIO option, it MUST unicast the RA at > layer 2 back to the sender of the RS. If the source address of the > RS was the unspecified address, then the IPv6 destination address of > the RA MUST be set to the all-nodes multicast address, other wise the > IPv6 destination address is copied from the inner IPv6 source address > of the Router Soliciation. In both cases the link-layer destination > address MUST be set to the unicast link-layer address which is in > Client Hardware Address field in the LIO. ? Those are the only two usages of the word "unicast" in the document. I'm not sure what to exclude MLDv2 from... -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
