Re: MLD snooping of solicted-node multicast (Was: Re: New Version Notification for draft-halpern-6man-nd-pre-resolve-addr-00.txt

Lorenzo Colitti <> Fri, 17 January 2014 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA771AC82A for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:37:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KY0_V4dCSBEB for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182FE1A1F63 for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id tq11so4080084ieb.14 for <>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:37:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=tnhWBDVUGiwmhI4twLTcPr8QgMMRnSZ0IGZWD1AGJkk=; b=QNknVSs6/gtWNYEBSeynGBnP8I9u2iLpd4TdGVaD7+xHMqqDcvmovVfAU/ZZ4IAXcu dSKpQi9W+7wuqWIUK/Y6MYJce3K9MKEk7HF4AcIaUlVpbs0zfB97ODtNK+m379mZpweL k3UM6jEsHOkqCZcWAYOhAGAkevCg6eGbtapV5IHCUZxCXPfdpdt/jIBoH5D7IjVdcSng TSgCPq3QMJJ0iKCd/RMtzX+VMN3AGhfzvYmGvVVjAQ4xeAlrDK4GREFDqxpRDphe5GXU nE+9RiWJMucy0YXXmbWrBjzxDTQWK2+JOti4tSiPLFDRUriIgSzSmA9jyV0iZZyeSpbY BmOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=tnhWBDVUGiwmhI4twLTcPr8QgMMRnSZ0IGZWD1AGJkk=; b=L0GuT0xBmQqyHPRjO1DIx79NRwsLwP+aDM7nvyB28TUxy4SVYkhcwRgEpV3tvHFa3Y lsuIbkLGbdKDgKfczEunQ+6B/+yTsmfX313o7/qdelaQWkyWnpuBihRq6uoi94eiw14l flWbgI59DHvvQEk8gqM2WOM0OyMs7hBYvXkHal4QjsobMIHvZN/CzPNP9GpH16JedzU2 DtNjl2SKyuOA4TLPNo4pqGnWoWdMkopw+nGdBqjyA7XrdiushhrcHgtUI1ZVRJeudHMy ha9LvNx/kcHwAPBz3cSRL5yd3UiMruFI3j2oDqeZsaMJtbgS6O0uqzG6gS2GZzRCY+V/ CCqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlEgqgp0RoaoBkWvd2vadPAMDRzpTWSFp0h8Omv1XXdpub0DZACzxn91T2VLzv8yxt9DofKkYVCOuKBpzEdvTmdvWn3xf/GMvbS5zL7Dtp6eK44zzKG1T+Y0nibfnfda97P4kvt3kIIx/MAPDzCl9K0SgwetIMEwPyTchYePZiMNIJYIKBi+8Xjl1WkAEuyzxxAH/00
X-Received: by with SMTP id m4mr4789709igx.47.1389987424383; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:37:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:36:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:36:44 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: MLD snooping of solicted-node multicast (Was: Re: New Version Notification for draft-halpern-6man-nd-pre-resolve-addr-00.txt
To: Dmitry Anipko <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a1f16ac58c704f02faad7"
Cc: 6man WG <>, Ing-Wher Chen <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:37:18 -0000

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Dmitry Anipko <
> wrote:

>  >>A more precise statement would be that the number of solicited-node
> groups scales linearly with the number of IPv6 addresses assigned to hosts,
> Agreed. And generally, number of addresses can be more than 2-3 (because
> of multiple prefixes, and because of multiple suffixes due to privacy
> extensions).
Indeed. But in the common case of a wifi network where devices come and go
frequently, you'll typically have only a link-local, a global, and one
temporary address. If you use EUI-64 the link-local and the global will be
on the same group.

>  We have recently seen issues in some APs, where they were not able to
> handle multiple addresses per host, because of some state maintained per
> host (that's not a justification that host should not have multiple
> addresses, but I just wanted to note that today there are issues in some
> cases related to that).
We should clarify that such behaviour is broken and that saying, "it works
in IPv4, so we should just use DHCPv6 for address assignment so that we can
force the host to have only one address" is not a solution.