Re: [MBONED] IPv6 Node Requirements (bis) vs LW-MLDv2
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MBONED] IPv6 Node Requirements (bis) vs LW-MLDv2
Hi,
> IMHO, we WG might want to update this text after LW-IGMPv3/MLDv2 has been
> publushed. Otherwise, all nodes that has applications need SSM MUST implement
> "full" MLDv2 (RFC3569, RFC4607) anyway, instead of LW-MLDv2; MLDv2 is not only
> for the wire format but also for state processing.
Are the following changes reasonable?
> |5.7. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 - RFC 2710
> |
> |
> | Nodes that need to join multicast groups MUST support MLDv1
> | [RFC3590]. MLDv1 is needed by any node that is expected to receive
> | and process multicast traffic. Note that Neighbor Discovery (as used
> | on most link types -- see Section 5.2) depends on multicast and
> | requires that nodes join Solicited Node multicast addresses.
> |
> | Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD implement MLDv2
> | [RFC3810]. However, if the node has applications that only need
> | support for Any-Source Multicast [RFC3569], the node MAY implement
> | MLDv1 [RFC2710] instead. If the node has applications that need
> | support for Source-Specific Multicast [RFC3569], [RFC4607], the node
> | MUST support MLDv2 [RFC3810]. In all cases, nodes are strongly
MUST support either MLDv2 [RFC3810] or LW-MLDv2 [LW-MLDv2]. In all cases, ...
> | encouraged to implement MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, as the presence of a
encouraged to implement MLDv2 or LW-MLDv2 rather than MLDv1, ...
> | single MLDv1 participant on a link requires that all other nodes on
> | the link operate in version 1 compatability mode.
> |
> | When MLDv1 is used, the rules in the Source Address Selection for the
> | Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol [RFC3590] MUST be
> | followed.
Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda
p.s. The intended status of the LW-IGMPv3/LW-MLDv2 draft is BCP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.