Brian, -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman [mailto:br...@innovationslab.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:03 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Ole Troan; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Suresh Krishnan; IPv6 WG Mailing List Subject: Re: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast WGLC
>Now, what I see you arguing above is that the router will receive this >message, but may try and pass it to a *different* ULP. I think we agree >that the router will receive the packet since it is addressed to one of >its L2 addresses. Yes, agreed. >Now, when it is parsing this message I don't see how >the L2 destination address will have any impact on which protocol this >message is handed to. All the routing platforms I am familiar with >follow a coarse (and high-level) logic like: >1. Verify L2 validity (e.g., checksum) >2. Pass packet to protocol handler based on e.g., ethertype >3. For IPv6, parse Next Header field >4. Process MLDv2 Report >So, I can't see a scenario where the L2 destination address interferes >with the proper handling of the L3 information. I agree that routers platforms have logic as your describe above. However, there is no reason why some platform cannot have dedicated logic from L2 multicast sniffer to a multicast-only ULP and likewise from the L2 unicast code go to a unicast-only ULP. Such platforms are not the norm, so I will go with your logic above and rest my case. Thanks, Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
