Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Tue, 09 September 2014 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1FF21A03F5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Woj5FRd88J7l for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:8240:6:a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C2681A02EC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:5c0:1000:a::1423] by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <fernando@gont.com.ar>) id 1XRMQ5-0004yp-W0; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:29:22 +0200
Message-ID: <540F0BCF.1060905@gont.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:16:47 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <1410082125488.85722@surrey.ac.uk> <540CB702.3000605@gmail.com> <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <540E26D9.3070907@gmail.com> <540E7DC3.8060408@gont.com.ar> <540EAA55.7000207@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <540EAA55.7000207@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/0rlYo8Y70KBWg2E_L8X1SOzljno
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:29:30 -0000

On 09/09/2014 04:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> OK, but I would also like to understand why we require
>>> MLD messages for a Solicited-Node multicast address to
>>> set Router Alert.
>>
>> Because in theory the multicast router needs to process the MLD message
>> to build its forwarding table....
> 
> Why, for the Solicited-Node group, which is only meaningful on the link
> from which the MLD message arrives?

Then, let me change the question: Why do I need MLD for *this*?

We probably use MLD because "If you use multicast, you use MLD". Truth
is that, *unless your switch does MLD snooping* (and hence you *need*
MLD, or else your packets will not flow around), you could completely
kill MLD, and ND would still work just fine.

Not to mention that there are nodes that default t running MLDv2 *for
this* (way overkill, IMO)

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1