Hi, Is LW-MLDv2 a profile of MLDv2 or a subset? Does it update or modify the MLDv2 specs? I'm somewhat confused about the relationship between them.
thanks, John >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of ext Hitoshi Asaeda >Sent: 20 November, 2008 17:31 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [MBONED] IPv6 Node Requirements (bis) vs LW-MLDv2 > >Hi, > >> IMHO, we WG might want to update this text after LW-IGMPv3/MLDv2 has >> been publushed. Otherwise, all nodes that has applications need SSM >> MUST implement "full" MLDv2 (RFC3569, RFC4607) anyway, instead of >> LW-MLDv2; MLDv2 is not only for the wire format but also for >state processing. > >Are the following changes reasonable? > >> |5.7. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710 >> | >> | >> | Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1 >> | [RFC3590]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected >to receive >> | and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor >Discovery (as used >> | on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and >> | requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses. >> | >> | Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2 >> | [RFC3810]. However, if the node has applications that only need >> | support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY >implement >> | MLDv1 [RFC2710] instead. If the node has applications that need >> | support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], >[RFC4607], the node >> | MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly > >MUST support either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or LW-MLDv2 [LW-MLDv2]. In >all cases, ... > >> | encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence >> | of a > >encouraged to implement MLDv2 or LW-MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, ... > >> | single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all >other nodes on >> | the link operate in version 1 compatability mode. >> | >> | When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address >Selection for the >> | Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be >> | followed. > >Regards, >-- >Hitoshi Asaeda > >p.s. The intended status of the LW-IGMPv3/LW-MLDv2 draft is BCP. >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
