Re: [rfc2462bis issue 274] conflict between MLD and NS delay

[JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L at C#:H(B <jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>]

>>>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:59:36 +1100, 
>>>>> Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au> said:

> The only existing reasons to do MLD on these addresses are
> so that MLD proxies, and snooping switchescan request
> multicast transport for those addresses.  Unless this
> is performed correctly, the node performing DAD
> will not receive DAD defence NA's, even if the DAD NS is
> sent with random delay.

> Since there is no random delay with MLD, the reliability issue
> still exists in these environments.  I believe that this may
> have been what what Markku was trying to communicate.

Okay, this is a valid point.  I actually thought what Markku wanted
to say could be something related to MLD snooping, but it was not very
clear just from his message, at least to me (so I simply asked his
intention in my previous message).

For the spec/documentation wise discussion, I'll reply to later
messages.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------