IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 10 September 2014 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 213611A03F4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:13:50 -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 rLOZKTJkf29J for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:13:45 -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 969331A0390 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [186.134.45.58] (helo=[192.168.123.128]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1XRWTe-0008M7-5K; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 03:13:42 +0200
Message-ID: <540F9FA9.3070300@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 21:47:37 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
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>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
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> <540F0BCF.1060905@gont.com.ar> <540F3432.5030702@innovationslab.net> <540F65C4.7050503@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <540F65C4.7050503@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ErhqtbbMQhV2MkD-IJjhTVOCUd4
Cc: 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: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 01:13:50 -0000

On 09/09/2014 05:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> Then, let me change the question: Why do I need MLD for *this*?
> 
> I think Brian Haberman's reply shows why that is the wrong question.
> You need MLD for every multicast group, including a solicited-node
> group, and if you insist on MLD snooping in the bridges (let's not
> obfuscate by calling them switches) then you need to snoop every
> solicited-node group.
> 
> My question is orthogonal to MLD snooping: why do we require router-alert
> for MLD messages referring to a solicited-node group, since it by
> definition is limited to a single L2 link (even if that link is
> split up by bridges)?

.. to avoid them being a special case?  -- i.e., all MLD packets carry a
Router Alert option. And, actually, an MLD report could potentially
include groups other than solicited-node (so you probably wouldn't want
to turn the "include a router-alert" on and off).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email