Hemant, >> I don't understand either. Why is it an issue for a sender node to > transmit a packet on the link-layer as a unicast message, if its known > there is only one receiver. I've not seen a single valid >argument and > so its fine, one is entitled for their opinions. > > This is the email I sent out to Fred on 8/3/2010 in regards to your > draft - in double quotes below. See my one reason for why your > document's rule will break MLDv2 protocol. Ole agrees with me that yes, > MLDv2 sniffing will not work with your document's rule. Further since > RFC 4862 uses MLDv2 for ND control messages such as an NS(DAD). So now > the router node also fails to get an NS(DAD). My summary is that IPv6 > address auto configuration in RFC 4862 and RFC 4861 ND control is so > tied to MLDv2 and RFC 3810 that if MLDv2 breaks for L2 sniffing as > mentioned below, we just broke other IPv6 control.
with regards to "Ole agrees...". sure, but you didn't paste the rest of my argument. which is that you don't need MLD snooping for what is a unicast message on L2. after all this is only going to be sent to a single receiver. how do you think MLD applies in this case? (apologies to Suresh for hijacking this thread for a L2 unicast draft issue). cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
