Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 15 September 2014 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 B09281A0650 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, 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 TaH_W-9nXpBY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D60B91A0645 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id B8237A5; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:04:26 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1410757466; bh=aAzh5WKAAPNVXWS07pmxyZIoZj6MtH7QjzrqA4zMU40=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Q2HOJVWJj5P3AEkbH4eEARduB97chGH37xlocHJEnc0cwGbzcdd7+Hpe+CcyKtuA6 zEVEFjUPHVShYlYU7e5vjU8sQdf3SgiW6LDbtNlPPoLB+XfSbkm5/1Y0CcK08LC+br +qDYpyyzRlZgVRiiLP7vppbchBvbMwdShJShlMeM=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3EAA2; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:04:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:04:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54166EE5.9080007@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1409150702180.14735@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <1410082125488.85722@surrey.ac.uk> <540CB702.3000605@gmail.com> <20140908183339.GB98785@ricotta.doit.wisc.edu> <540E26D9.3070907@gmail.com> <1410227735.13436.YahooMailNeo@web162204.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <540E6299.2050003@gmail.com> <1410743000.11973.YahooMailNeo@web162204.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <54166EE5.9080007@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3VTh01NCGWPJdYwUENdzRqw341o
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 05:04:31 -0000

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> was MLD snooping (i.e. a layer violation by L2 switches). Even so,

This is the first time I have seen anyone calling MLD/IGMP snooping a 
"layer violation by L2 switches" (I'm interpreting this as you thinking 
it's negative, do tell if this is not the case).

How else is L2 equipment going to make intelligent decisions about 
multicast forwarding within an L2?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se