> Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > > > Anyone proposed until now to update RFC2464 "IPv6 over Ethernet > > Networks"? If not, I'd like to propose updating the following text: > > > > > An IPv6 packet with a multicast destination address DST, > consisting > > > of the sixteen octets DST[1] through DST[16], is > transmitted to the > > > Ethernet multicast address whose first two octets are the > > value 3333 > > > hexadecimal and whose last four octets are the last four > octets of > > > DST. > > > > Not all Ethernet links/cards/drivers/firmware support this > > 3333 value, > > nor even Ethernet multicast groups. Those who don't will > > work fine with > > v4 (6 times ff) but not with v6. So some relaxing text > > saying "either > > 33:33:xx:xx:xx:xx or ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff" may help. > > > > I don't understand why ND is so tight to the Ethernet > > multicast in the > > first place, but anyways. > > Not sure I understand the problem. > > For IPv4 multicast, the Ethernet address becomes 01-00-5E and > the lowest 23 bits of the IPv4 Class D address. > > For IPv6, 33-33 and the lowest 32 bits of the IPv6 multicast address. > > Don't all Ethernet cards and drivers understand the meaning > of the LSbit of the first byte (the G/I bit)? As long as that > bit is set to 1, won't all Ethernet switches know to flood > the frame to all ports in the spanning tree?
More exactly, what I meant was won't all Ethernet switches *at least* know to flood those frames to all ports in the spanning tree, even if they don't do anything more intelligent. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
