>>>>> On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:21:53 +0900 (JST),
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) said:
>> Just a refresh of my opinion on this (so that people don't forget):
>>
>> Sending MLD reports on link local multicast groups is silly, and
>> SHOULD NOT be required.
>>
>> It is not nice to require modifications and warts to perfectly working
>> RFC due to layer breaking entities like MLD-snooping
>> switches. Especially, when exactly the same information would be
>> available to them from the DAD NS. Join for "solicited node multicast
>> group" has exactly the same information as DAD NS.
> i understand your logic, but disagree. what you are saying is
> "we can make MLD-and-NS-snooping switch and require no MLD for NS".
> MLD-and-NS-snooping switch is also a layer breaking entity.
I second this opinion.
Whether or not we like the layer breaking entities, the problem is
real (or likely to happen). So at least we need to describe the issue
somewhere.
Perhaps rfc2462bis may not be the best place for this, but I cannot
find a better place right now. For now, I'd like to make the new
revision ship with the proposed wording.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
