Re: [magma] Question about IGMP host implementation

Hitoshi Asaeda <> Fri, 14 October 2011 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D3421F8C04 for <>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S+lbjRVCBV9J for <>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108D521F8B38 for <>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EF41278097; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:37:41 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:37:40 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [magma] Question about IGMP host implementation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast and Anycast Group Membership <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:38:13 -0000

>>         I think GTSM does solve the issue of forwarding IGMP messages but as
>>         you mentioned its only for unicast.
>>         Till now, I have not seen any implementation using Unicast
>>         destination address for IGMP messages. So I am not sure if someone
>>         will really be interested in this work.
>>         May be there are some legacy or customized implementation which I am
>>         not aware of and we need to see if these people would be interested
>>         in this.,
> I know one implementation at least. But note that even if no one sends
> them, the RFC says they should be accepted. So we do have a problem if
> someone intentionally spoofs unicast packet.
> If almost no one sends them, then changing to GTSM will be easier.

I think using unicast query is not well defined and considered in
rfc3376 and 3810.
Although it would be useful for some environment, e.g. resource
sensitive wireless link, it may cause some security concern. And also,
unicast query is not used standalone. Multicast query must be also
Please check Appendix A. in;

Hitoshi Asaeda

p.s. I'd appreciate any comment for above draft. Please post your
comment to the multimob ML if you have.