On 8/16/10 4:36 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > Hemant, > >>> I don't understand either. Why is it an issue for a sender node >>> to >> transmit a packet on the link-layer as a unicast message, if its >> known there is only one receiver. I've not seen a single valid >> >argument and so its fine, one is entitled for their opinions. >> >> This is the email I sent out to Fred on 8/3/2010 in regards to >> your draft - in double quotes below. See my one reason for why >> your document's rule will break MLDv2 protocol. Ole agrees with me >> that yes, MLDv2 sniffing will not work with your document's rule. >> Further since RFC 4862 uses MLDv2 for ND control messages such as >> an NS(DAD). So now the router node also fails to get an NS(DAD). >> My summary is that IPv6 address auto configuration in RFC 4862 and >> RFC 4861 ND control is so tied to MLDv2 and RFC 3810 that if MLDv2 >> breaks for L2 sniffing as mentioned below, we just broke other IPv6 >> control. > > with regards to "Ole agrees...". sure, but you didn't paste the rest > of my argument. which is that you don't need MLD snooping for what is > a unicast message on L2. after all this is only going to be sent to a > single receiver.
Correct. The MLD snooping functionality only looks at L3 information if the L2 destination address is a multicast address. In this case, L2 has a unicast address and the MLD snooping function will never see the packet (it will be forwarded using standard L2 logic). > > how do you think MLD applies in this case? I agree. It shouldn't. > > (apologies to Suresh for hijacking this thread for a L2 unicast draft > issue). +1. Regards, Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
