Re: node-req-bis - making a note about multicast

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Sat, 15 March 2008 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E613A6AA1; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.963
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.826, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t9A0XQGUIODU; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E863A6CE3; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277953A6C52 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZOTxR4oNmZon for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com (e3.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07CD3A6C48 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2FIt1tN007349 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:55:02 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m2FIt2Ma221860 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:55:02 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2FIt1lP013794 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:55:01 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (wecm-9-67-216-211.wecm.ibm.com [9.67.216.211]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2FIt0Kv013632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:55:01 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid-new [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id m2FIsxea023846; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:54:59 -0700
Message-Id: <200803151854.m2FIsxea023846@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Julien Abeillé <jabeille@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: node-req-bis - making a note about multicast
In-reply-to: <47DA40BE.40800@cisco.com>
References: <47DA40BE.40800@cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Julien Abeillé <jabeille@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:09:18 +0100."
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:54:59 -0700
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

> in RFC4294 in section 4.6 MLDv2 support is a SHOULD for all "nodes that 
> need to join multicast groups"

In reading this, the current wording is not particularly clear. The
first "if" means that the SHOULD really ought to be a MUST (IMO).
I.e., if a node has an application that runs multicast, it MUST run
MLD. Otherwise, things won't work properly.

That said, one needs to run MLD just to support Neighbor Discovery
properly (see 7.2.1 of RFC 4861). So, it would appear that running MLD
really is a MUST in practice.

Well, almost. One needs to run MLD on link technologies that require
the use of ND (and multicast) _and_ that may be bridged, i.e,
LANs. But I can imagine some link types where there won't be bridging,
and more importantly, IP multicast won't be supported and Address
Resolution is done in a link-specific way. See section 5.2 of the
node-req-bis document for more explanation.  So I think a MUST for MLD
is too strong, but _just_ barely. :-)

So, I wonder whether the better text for this section would be
something like:

   Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLD. MLD 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 SHOULD implement MLDv2 [RFC3810].  However, if the node has
   applications that only need support for Any-Source Multicast, 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 encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than
   MLDv1, as the presence of a single MLDv1 participant on a link
   requires that all other nodes on the link operate in version 1
   compatability mode.

   If MLDv1 is implemented, the rules in the Source Address Selection
   for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST
   be followed.

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------