-----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:59 AM To: Ole Troan Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Suresh Krishnan; IPv6 WG Mailing List Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt
>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). Brian, I changed the subject back to the Gundavelli document. I am saying a host sent an MLDv2 Report to a router. There is no network switch between this host and the router. Now with the rule in the Gundavelli document, the host sent the MLDv2 Report with the L3 multicast destination but L2 unicast destination. The L2 sniffer on the router fails to capture this packet and fails to forward the packet to its ULP (Upper Layer Protocol) for multicast. So now the packet is shipped to the unicast ULP. Why can't the unicast ULP barf that it received a packet with a L3 destination when it's a unicast ULP? Why shouldn't we test such a case with a router and a host sending such a doctored MLDv2 Report? One should use more than one router to test such a case. Or am I missing something - if yes, my humble apologies. Thanks, Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
