Re: [16NG] FW: Review on v6ops 802.16 deployment scenario (J Kim of AT&TLabs)

gabriel montenegro wrote:
> GARP/GMRP is not widely deployed, and seems to be obsoleted at the 
> IEEE already.

Thanks for clarification.  Maybe IEEE proposes something else instead,
in order to have link-layer multicast?

> RFC 4541 (MLD snooping) is the deployed solution, as Max already 
> discussed in the November meeting:
> 
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/16ng-4/sld7.htm

Yes, remark though that the MLD snooping doc rfc4541 is informational,
will that alter the status of IPv6-over-ETHCS.

I am not sure the IPv6-over-ETHCS could make a recommendation to use
rfc4541, because of its informational status.

IPv6-over-ETHCS could simply assume that ETHCS offers link-layer
multicast service to the IPv6 stack.  This could be a goal for ETHCS.
Whether ETHCS fullfills that by using MLD snooping or another IEEE
link-layer protocol, that should be irrelevant to the IPv6 stack.  But I
don't think the IPv6-over-ETHCS should recommend use of MLD snooping.

> Notice that the last bullet mentions that no ND changes are required,
>  so a future revision of the IP-over-ETH-CS draft will have much 
> simpler ND-related text.

Yes, I agree.

> A good reference in this respect is:
> 
> 2.7.2.  Host/Router Flooding Reduction in 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-07.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To point out that solutions exist, of which RFC4541 is the most 
> widely deployed.

I can not comment on the deployed widely comment, but the fact that it's
informational it may mean it's not interoperable although widely
deployed?  I don't know, just asking.

Alex

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng