Re: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast WGLC

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:59 AM
To: Ole Troan
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Suresh Krishnan;
IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: Consensus call on
adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt


>Correct.  The MLD snooping functionality only looks at L3 information
if
>the L2 destination address is a multicast address.  In this case, L2
has
>a unicast address and the MLD snooping function will never see the
>packet (it will be forwarded using standard L2 logic).

Brian, I changed the subject back to the Gundavelli document.  I am
saying a host sent an MLDv2 Report to a router.  There is no network
switch between this host and the router.  Now with the rule in the
Gundavelli document, the host sent the MLDv2 Report with the L3
multicast destination but L2 unicast destination.  The L2 sniffer on the
router fails to capture this packet and fails to forward the packet to
its ULP (Upper Layer Protocol) for multicast.  So now the packet is
shipped to the unicast ULP. Why can't the unicast ULP barf that it
received a packet with a L3 destination when it's a unicast ULP?  Why
shouldn't we test such a case with a router and a host sending such a
doctored MLDv2 Report?  One should use more than one router to test such
a case.  Or am I missing something - if yes, my humble apologies.

Thanks,

Hemant