Re: [v6ops] ref Hosts dont MLD to join LL groups

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 23 July 2015 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 268701A916F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 8v9N4OCg_VfO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99E6B1A9165 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6922F61CB; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=gIMcWm179c8BoD5bkxORQ1WmZE0=; b= gw4OGJ5u4j0J6fYgYDtlqjeWsgWhi14vMmH+KNTKJ9ZLMC1of/XRw30lAnNWklci w3YY/4DN0vNdyWoy1e8hY42MeEuZd0JBgnciNaOn1lFWQbo6KsODEC5TVhaDkGpW TD5hch7QBWXPHpUQLLTaAIMqYAOcLbSXSPakV9HSiLQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=i8LRMv39ESJWCs/v2ICduwscAY A1Kp5E9LJmCQwSN/fctb83+zfEAUpBoZ/zJbOvU/HymyBOFQQMkv4mxVU5MQcEad BUdJkxkRqhcbhTZEoZovKhPaCNzwDzQ6cJRgyyhqOYDoAFk5Rp9QGeM0JkGas1CR 4DwB0FxisJjQ2lhxc=
Received: from gomlefisk.localdomain (dhcp-a290.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.162.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2661761CA; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gomlefisk.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04CC498CBBF; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A206960-3303-4B88-89CD-9C19D36808AC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <55B0D356.7070505@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:51:33 -0700
Message-Id: <6666FED5-227B-496F-B5F5-2883A12F9B96@employees.org>
References: <55AE42A4.8020908@gmail.com> <5CD05758-D7B7-476D-9936-E5A1D0614AF8@employees.org> <55B0D356.7070505@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/FPMzl-pqyfXZBpxN54oxwYUYyyo>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ref Hosts dont MLD to join LL groups
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:51:15 -0000

Alexandru,

I’m afraid I couldn’t interpret your message. would someone else be able to translate?

cheers,
Ole

>> 
>> I do wonder if we should expand that exception to all link-scope
>> multicast addresses.
>> 
> 
> I would beg to disagree.
> 
> If we expand that to all link-scoped groups, may lead to dismantling IPv6 dependence on 33::1 - ff:ff:ff:ff:ff would be sufficient.
> 
> My oppinion would rather be to modify the MLD RFC to mandate MLD joins for all scopes.
> 
> Ethernet has primitives for joining the corresponding link-layer groups, and in some cases they are used. Maybe all should use them.
> 
>> the bridge implementors I speak to tell me that they don’t have
>> enough state to do MLD snooping for link-local scoped multicast
>> addresses anyway...
> 
> This may be dumb from my side, but why dont bridge implementers use link-layer multicast?  They shouldnt implement MLD, and not snoop it. The Hosts should send the necessary link-layer multicast joins (triggered by themselves sending MLD REPORT for these groups) to the bridge addresses.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> cheers, Ole