Re: [v6ops] Interesting problems with using IPv6

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 11/09/2014 00:26, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 9/10/14 6:18 AM, Andrew 👽  Yourtchenko wrote:
>> On 9/10/14, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2014 12:47, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Yes, it would be an exception. But we know that HbH options in general
>>> and Router Alert in particular are a serious performance issue, and
>>> that all links carry this particular kind of MLD traffic, so an
>>> exception seems like something to be discussed.
>> How does this interact with the case where a "pure L2" switch within
>> the link would want to snoop MLD ? Presumably, today the L2 switch
>> would see the "router alert" and know that it needs to process this
>> traffic.
>>
>> If this were to be removed, then it would be much trickier to direct
>> the traffic to the slow path in that scenario, wouldn't it ?
> 
> I think that depends.  As I mentioned in an earlier e-mail, some routers
> simply use the IPv4 Protocol field or the IPv6 Next Header field to see
> if they need to process the packet.  It is unclear (to me) how many
> implementations still use the Router Alert to determine if the packet
> needs local processing.  Maybe some vendors could chime in?

I have the impression that many boxes will look at *any* ICMPv6
packet, because in their firewall role they filter ICMPv6.
In that case the Router Alert is certainly redundant. However,
we do need vendor feedback, as you say.

   Brian C