[RTG-DIR]Re: [pim] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

I am not aware of any work for MLDv3 right, however:

In the process of rfc3810 (as well as the IGMPv3 equivalent), we did run across
a couple of changes that i think the PIM-WG (maybe even more so MBONED-WG) feels to
be beneficial for the user/operator community, however, they would likely make it difficult,
if not impossible to get Internet Standard classification. So those changes might actually
be something to consider for a next protocol revision.

Personally, i would not necessarily call it MLDv3 but maybe something like MLDv2.1:
as much as possible backward compatibility would still be core goal. To the extend
of router-alert i think we would want to say "MUST support receiving messages with router-alert,
SHOULD NOT send messages with router alert".

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 08:08:54PM +0000, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> First, I agree that it would be a mistake to remove the Router Alert from MLDv2. The V6OPS draft isn't even requesting that.
> 
> However, if we are working on an MLDv3, this may present a very good opportunity to remove the dependency on Router Alert.
> 
> I wasn't aware that MLDv3 was in the works? Is there a draft that I can read?
> 
>                                                                                     Ron
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:19 AM
> To: David Lamparter <[e-mail]>; Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]>; Erik Kline <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
> 
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> W/o any hat and thank you, David, to bring the elephant in the room topic (no sarcasm here, just a sincere thank you to open the discussion).
> 
> 
> 
> Removing the router alert from MLDv2 would be such a drastic change (not even required by the 6MAN draft) that IMHO it cannot be named MLDv2-bis and should be another MLD version (and I know that MLDv3 is in the cooking).
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s not overreact here ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> -éric
> 
> 
> 
> From: David Lamparter <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, 23 July 2024 at 16:13
> To: Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]>, Erik Kline <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Last-Call] Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> having just been in 6man:  there is a bit of unfortunate parallel
> "business" going on with draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert[1].
> That draft is suggesting the IPv6 router alert option be deprecated.
> 3810bis makes no change to MLD behavior, which is that receivers MUST
> discard packets without router alert. (sections 6.2, 7.4, 7.6 and 10)
> 
> 3810bis[0] is quite far into the publication process, but it might still
> make sense to look at this?
> 
> (I'll also bring this up in tomorrow's pim session.)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> equi
> (David)
> 
> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3810bis/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3810bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D3IbuZhdqjLnM0Q3c0UmMwHot7gIMSsRcFVXxbQqCsY_9iX1Od4M7Didztu356LG0BHdqa1xeHY2DCk$>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D3IbuZhdqjLnM0Q3c0UmMwHot7gIMSsRcFVXxbQqCsY_9iX1Od4M7Didztu356LG0BHdqa1xRIONli4$>
> 
> --
> last-call mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]

-- 
---
[e-mail]