Hi, On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:59:55AM +0200, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:14:31AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > > > So, one interpretation would be that if the device hasn't subscribed to > > > the > > > "all IPv6 nodes" multicast group, it's not an IPv6 node, and shouldn't > > > receive the traffic.
RFC 2710, sect. 5, states that no REPORT or DONE messages are to be sent for link-scope all-nodes (ff:02::1), so one can't potentially "subscribe" to that address in a setting with MLD snooping. > > RFC 4541 "Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) > and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping Switches" says: > > "3. IPv6 Considerations > [...] > > In IPv6, the data forwarding rules are more straight forward because > MLD is mandated for addresses with scope 2 (link-scope) or greater. > The only exception is the address FF02::1 which is the all hosts > link-scope address for which MLD messages are never sent. Packets > with the all hosts link-scope address should be forwarded on all > ports." > > -is it should be noted that RFC 4541 is an "Informational" one and I don't think any normative value for a kind-of vendor-proprietary thing called "MLD snooping" might be attached to it ;-) best Enno -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================