Markku Savela wrote:
From: Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- desire to avoid packet storms upon booting many nodes simultaneously
2710 accomplishes this by using message suppression. If a node hears a Report for the same group, it cancels the transmission of any pending Reports it has for the group.
Above will totally fail with ND multicast groups. Their design goal is that each host is only on one group. It is highly unlikely that listening would hear a duplicate join for the solicited node multicast address.
It is not a failure, it is just not useful for solicited-node multicast addresses. But, you also snipped a part of the note that pointed out that ND and MLD were designed with differing techniques to deal with reliability.
I've already said my differing opinion on this way back earlier, but apparently I lost the vote. But, just to make clear:
sending MLD messages for link local multicast groups is waste of time and specification effort. If you have layer 2 sniffers, they can (and most likely must) sniff the normal ND traffic too. A ND DAD contains exactly the same information content as MLD join for the solicited node group.
And the MLD Report for the solicted-node multicast address will cause the L2 sniffer to forward the ND DAD message to any other port that has joined the same multicast group. If two nodes are DAD'ing for the same unicast address, the L2 sniffer will need to forward those NS messages to all ports where the solicited-node address has been joined.
Regards, Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
