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

[Markku Savela <msa at burp.tkv.asdf.org>]

> From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>

> > - desire to avoid packet storms upon booting many nodes simultaneously
> 
> 2710 accomplishes this by using message suppression.  If a node hears a
> Report for the same group, it cancels the transmission of any pending
> Reports it has for the group.

Above will totally fail with ND multicast groups. Their design goal is
that each host is only on one group. It is highly unlikely that
listening would hear a duplicate join for the solicited node multicast
address.

I've already said my differing opinion on this way back earlier, but
apparently I lost the vote. But, just to make clear:

  sending MLD messages for link local multicast groups is waste of
  time and specification effort. If you have layer 2 sniffers, they
  can (and most likely must) sniff the normal ND traffic too. A ND DAD
  contains exactly the same information content as MLD join for the
  solicited node group.

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